Debt under Obama: money well spent (mostly)

[ShawnChris13]

This isnt hard to figure out. The biggest republican lie is that tax cuts pay for themselves. They do not. This is fundamental economics here. Less revenue=more debt. Less revenue is the other major contributing factor to both Obama and Bush's debt. Revenue is how we pay for government expenses.

Less revenue = less revenue.



More spending = more debt.



See how that works? Not the rhetoric placed by the left but the definitions of the words. You're welcome

You people are just unbelievable. Tell me. When you pay your taxes, what exactly do you think the government does with it?

Did you read my post?

 

[Billy000]

Less revenue = less revenue.



More spending = more debt.



See how that works? Not the rhetoric placed by the left but the definitions of the words. You're welcome

You people are just unbelievable. Tell me. When you pay your taxes, what exactly do you think the government does with it?

Did you read my post?

Less revenue=less available government funds=more borrowing by way of spending= more debt

 

[ShawnChris13]

You people are just unbelievable. Tell me. When you pay your taxes, what exactly do you think the government does with it?

Did you read my post?

Less revenue=less available government funds=more borrowing by way of spending= more debt

No. You see, if you just spend less you don't need to borrow. I knew you were making crazy assumptions about how spending less works.

 

[Billy000]

Did you read my post?

Less revenue=less available government funds=more borrowing by way of spending= more debt

No. You see, if you just spend less you don't need to borrow. I knew you were making crazy assumptions about how spending less works.

Government spending is a necessary practice. What pays for it is revenue. What is bad, is too much spending. Spending money we cannot pay for because there is a lack of revenue.

My god. I honestly feel like I am talking to grade schoolers with this shit.

 

[ShawnChris13]

Less revenue=less available government funds=more borrowing by way of spending= more debt

No. You see, if you just spend less you don't need to borrow. I knew you were making crazy assumptions about how spending less works.

Government spending is a necessary practice. What pays for it is revenue. What is bad, is too much spending. Spending money we cannot pay for because there is a lack of revenue.



My god. I honestly feel like I am talking to grade schoolers with this shit.

You feel like you're talking to grade schoolers because I said spend less means borrow less? Or less revenue means spend less?

Or because you said government spending is a necessary practice? Did I refute that? Or are you trying to imply that Obama raising our debt to $17 trillion is ok? Or that Bush was more bad because of what he did?

I'm keeping it pretty simple. I can see how you've confused yourself, though.

 

[Billy000]

No. You see, if you just spend less you don't need to borrow. I knew you were making crazy assumptions about how spending less works.

Government spending is a necessary practice. What pays for it is revenue. What is bad, is too much spending. Spending money we cannot pay for because there is a lack of revenue.



My god. I honestly feel like I am talking to grade schoolers with this shit.

You feel like you're talking to grade schoolers because I said spend less means borrow less? Or less revenue means spend less?

Or because you said government spending is a necessary practice? Did I refute that? Or are you trying to imply that Obama raising our debt to $17 trillion is ok? Or that Bush was more bad because of what he did?

I'm keeping it pretty simple. I can see how you've confused yourself, though.

You are such an idiot. What do you think pays for our public schools? Our military? Our justice system? REVENUE which is TAXES. We SPEND on these services. When we have sufficient revenue, we can pay for these services. Spending government money does not mean more debt if we have enough revenue to pay for it. Tax cuts means less revenue. Tax cuts are just as harmful as TOO MUCH government spending.

My god. How old are you?

 

[ShawnChris13]

Government spending is a necessary practice. What pays for it is revenue. What is bad, is too much spending. Spending money we cannot pay for because there is a lack of revenue.



My god. I honestly feel like I am talking to grade schoolers with this shit.

You feel like you're talking to grade schoolers because I said spend less means borrow less? Or less revenue means spend less?

Or because you said government spending is a necessary practice? Did I refute that? Or are you trying to imply that Obama raising our debt to $17 trillion is ok? Or that Bush was more bad because of what he did?

I'm keeping it pretty simple. I can see how you've confused yourself, though.

You are such an idiot. What do you think pays for our public schools? Our military? Our justice system? REVENUE which is TAXES. We SPEND on these services. When we have sufficient revenue, we can pay for these services. Spending government money does not mean more debt if we have enough revenue to pay for it. Tax cuts means less revenue. Tax cuts are just as harmful as TOO MUCH government spending.

My god. How old are you?

So with fifteen new taxes in Obamacare and 300 million people that have to pay into that alongside income taxes (not to mention that your favorite president Obama has decreased the pay of the military with his payroll taxes) and several other taxes that exist you think we should raise taxes?

Tax cuts, if they were at drastic levels, would be harmful. But to think that cutting taxes hurts comparably to the drastic increases in spending over the last few decades is simply astounding.

I'm old enough to look at a graph and watch that red government spending line skyrocket. Is that old enough for you Mr. I Wanna Try To Insult Peoples Intelligence Every Chance I Get?

 

[Billy000]

You feel like you're talking to grade schoolers because I said spend less means borrow less? Or less revenue means spend less?

Or because you said government spending is a necessary practice? Did I refute that? Or are you trying to imply that Obama raising our debt to $17 trillion is ok? Or that Bush was more bad because of what he did?

I'm keeping it pretty simple. I can see how you've confused yourself, though.

You are such an idiot. What do you think pays for our public schools? Our military? Our justice system? REVENUE which is TAXES. We SPEND on these services. When we have sufficient revenue, we can pay for these services. Spending government money does not mean more debt if we have enough revenue to pay for it. Tax cuts means less revenue. Tax cuts are just as harmful as TOO MUCH government spending.

My god. How old are you?

So with fifteen new taxes in Obamacare and 300 million people that have to pay into that alongside income taxes (not to mention that your favorite president Obama has decreased the pay of the military with his payroll taxes) and several other taxes that exist you think we should raise taxes?

Tax cuts, if they were at drastic levels, would be harmful. But to think that cutting taxes hurts comparably to the drastic increases in spending over the last few decades is simply astounding.

I'm old enough to look at a graph and watch that red government spending line skyrocket. Is that old enough for you Mr. I Wanna Try To Insult Peoples Intelligence Every Chance I Get?

You forget of course that Obama extended Bush's tax cuts. It's now good that they have expired. We have an increase in revenue.

Yes, let's cut spending as well. Obama is spending way too much on defense.

 

[ShawnChris13]

You are such an idiot. What do you think pays for our public schools? Our military? Our justice system? REVENUE which is TAXES. We SPEND on these services. When we have sufficient revenue, we can pay for these services. Spending government money does not mean more debt if we have enough revenue to pay for it. Tax cuts means less revenue. Tax cuts are just as harmful as TOO MUCH government spending.



My god. How old are you?

So with fifteen new taxes in Obamacare and 300 million people that have to pay into that alongside income taxes (not to mention that your favorite president Obama has decreased the pay of the military with his payroll taxes) and several other taxes that exist you think we should raise taxes?



Tax cuts, if they were at drastic levels, would be harmful. But to think that cutting taxes hurts comparably to the drastic increases in spending over the last few decades is simply astounding.



I'm old enough to look at a graph and watch that red government spending line skyrocket. Is that old enough for you Mr. I Wanna Try To Insult Peoples Intelligence Every Chance I Get?

You forget of course that Obama extended Bush's tax cuts. It's now good that they have expired. We have an increase in revenue.



Yes, let's cut spending as well. Obama is spending way too much on defense.

How could you think I forgot something I never mentioned anything about?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You know maybe if you actually read the OP, you could join the discussion. I am not repeating it. Read the OP. This isn't hard.

"Here is what Obama did wrong: Extending the Bush tax cuts. The CBO estimates that the Bush tax cuts created 4.6 jobs for every million dollar cut. That is pathetic job growth. Bush was stupid to introduce them and Obama was stupid to extend them. Reductions in the tax rate actually hurt the economy. Every dollar lost in tax revenue only creates 59 cents in growth"

Now that you've said it, all you need to do is prove it.

This isnt hard to figure out. The biggest republican lie is that tax cuts pay for themselves. They do not. This is fundamental economics here. Less revenue=more debt. Less revenue is the other major contributing factor to both Obama and Bush's debt. Revenue is how we pay for government expenses. When there is less revenue, the government has to BORROW more money. The problem with Obama as well as Bush before him, is that they are spending faster than it is being paid for with revenue. In Obama's case, this is primarily on defense. We do not have enough revenue to pay for it. Therefore, not only do we have to CUT spending, we also need to RAISE revenue.

If you people can't wrap your minds around the above paragraph, then god help you.

The biggest republican lie is that tax cuts pay for themselves. They do not.

Except for capital gains tax cuts, you're right. So what?

When there is less revenue, the government has to BORROW more money.

Or cut spending. Again, so what?

You said, "Reductions in the tax rate actually hurt the economy"

Now prove it, or admit you can't.

 

[Billy000]

"Here is what Obama did wrong: Extending the Bush tax cuts. The CBO estimates that the Bush tax cuts created 4.6 jobs for every million dollar cut. That is pathetic job growth. Bush was stupid to introduce them and Obama was stupid to extend them. Reductions in the tax rate actually hurt the economy. Every dollar lost in tax revenue only creates 59 cents in growth"

Now that you've said it, all you need to do is prove it.

This isnt hard to figure out. The biggest republican lie is that tax cuts pay for themselves. They do not. This is fundamental economics here. Less revenue=more debt. Less revenue is the other major contributing factor to both Obama and Bush's debt. Revenue is how we pay for government expenses. When there is less revenue, the government has to BORROW more money. The problem with Obama as well as Bush before him, is that they are spending faster than it is being paid for with revenue. In Obama's case, this is primarily on defense. We do not have enough revenue to pay for it. Therefore, not only do we have to CUT spending, we also need to RAISE revenue.

If you people can't wrap your minds around the above paragraph, then god help you.

The biggest republican lie is that tax cuts pay for themselves. They do not.

Except for capital gains tax cuts, you're right. So what?

When there is less revenue, the government has to BORROW more money.

Or cut spending. Again, so what?

You said, "Reductions in the tax rate actually hurt the economy"

Now prove it, or admit you can't.

I find your signature very ironic.

Well if you agree the Bush tax cuts don't pay for themselves, then you would know the lack of revenue adds to our debt. That is the other main reason our debt is so high. For every dollar lost in revenue from Bush's cuts, we only generated .59 cents in economic growth. On top of that, job growth from these cuts were pathetic. It doesn't create the job growth republicans promise. Not even close. We lose more than we gain through tax cuts. That harms the economy. I know thinking is difficult, but it really is important in understanding anything.

Yes dumbass I made that clear. We do need to cut spending. Defense spending. That is Obama's biggest increase.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This isnt hard to figure out. The biggest republican lie is that tax cuts pay for themselves. They do not. This is fundamental economics here. Less revenue=more debt. Less revenue is the other major contributing factor to both Obama and Bush's debt. Revenue is how we pay for government expenses. When there is less revenue, the government has to BORROW more money. The problem with Obama as well as Bush before him, is that they are spending faster than it is being paid for with revenue. In Obama's case, this is primarily on defense. We do not have enough revenue to pay for it. Therefore, not only do we have to CUT spending, we also need to RAISE revenue.

If you people can't wrap your minds around the above paragraph, then god help you.

The biggest republican lie is that tax cuts pay for themselves. They do not.

Except for capital gains tax cuts, you're right. So what?

When there is less revenue, the government has to BORROW more money.

Or cut spending. Again, so what?

You said, "Reductions in the tax rate actually hurt the economy"

Now prove it, or admit you can't.

I find your signature very ironic.

Well if you agree the Bush tax cuts don't pay for themselves, then you would know the lack of revenue adds to our debt. That is the other main reason our debt is so high. For every dollar lost in revenue from Bush's cuts, we only generated .59 cents in economic growth. On top of that, job growth from these cuts were pathetic. It doesn't create the job growth republicans promise. Not even close. We lose more than we gain through tax cuts. That harms the economy. I know thinking is difficult, but it really is important in understanding anything.

Yes dumbass I made that clear. We do need to cut spending. Defense spending. That is Obama's biggest increase.

For every dollar lost in revenue from Bush's cuts, we only generated .59 cents in economic growth.

Great, tax cuts add growth, tax hikes hurt growth.

Reductions in the tax rate actually hurt the economy

Why do you run from your claim?

We do need to cut spending. Defense spending. That is Obama's biggest increase.

Obama increased defense spending? Show me.

 

[Billy000]

The biggest republican lie is that tax cuts pay for themselves. They do not.

Except for capital gains tax cuts, you're right. So what?

When there is less revenue, the government has to BORROW more money.

Or cut spending. Again, so what?

You said, "Reductions in the tax rate actually hurt the economy"

Now prove it, or admit you can't.

I find your signature very ironic.

Well if you agree the Bush tax cuts don't pay for themselves, then you would know the lack of revenue adds to our debt. That is the other main reason our debt is so high. For every dollar lost in revenue from Bush's cuts, we only generated .59 cents in economic growth. On top of that, job growth from these cuts were pathetic. It doesn't create the job growth republicans promise. Not even close. We lose more than we gain through tax cuts. That harms the economy. I know thinking is difficult, but it really is important in understanding anything.

Yes dumbass I made that clear. We do need to cut spending. Defense spending. That is Obama's biggest increase.

For every dollar lost in revenue from Bush's cuts, we only generated .59 cents in economic growth.

Great, tax cuts add growth, tax hikes hurt growth.

Reductions in the tax rate actually hurt the economy

Why do you run from your claim?

We do need to cut spending. Defense spending. That is Obama's biggest increase.

Obama increased defense spending? Show me.

Uh, no we lose more in revenue than we do gain in the private market. That makes it a LOSS. We gained more in debt than we do in economic growth. Christ dude. This logic is as easy as 2+2.

Again, you dumbass. If you read the OP maybe you would learn something. Obama increased defense spending by 800 billion a year. I cited the source.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I find your signature very ironic.

Well if you agree the Bush tax cuts don't pay for themselves, then you would know the lack of revenue adds to our debt. That is the other main reason our debt is so high. For every dollar lost in revenue from Bush's cuts, we only generated .59 cents in economic growth. On top of that, job growth from these cuts were pathetic. It doesn't create the job growth republicans promise. Not even close. We lose more than we gain through tax cuts. That harms the economy. I know thinking is difficult, but it really is important in understanding anything.

Yes dumbass I made that clear. We do need to cut spending. Defense spending. That is Obama's biggest increase.

For every dollar lost in revenue from Bush's cuts, we only generated .59 cents in economic growth.

Great, tax cuts add growth, tax hikes hurt growth.

Reductions in the tax rate actually hurt the economy

Why do you run from your claim?

We do need to cut spending. Defense spending. That is Obama's biggest increase.

Obama increased defense spending? Show me.

Uh, no we lose more in revenue than we do gain in the private market. That makes it a LOSS. We gained more in debt than we do in economic growth. Christ dude. This logic is as easy as 2+2.

Again, you dumbass. If you read the OP maybe you would learn something. Obama increased defense spending by 800 billion a year. I cited the source.

Uh, no we lose more in revenue than we do gain in the private market. That makes it a LOSS.

Increased money in the hands of the people, increased growth and less money in the hands of government.

Win-win-win.

Obama increased defense spending by 800 billion a year.

The Washington Post says you're an idiot.

 

[Billy000]

For every dollar lost in revenue from Bush's cuts, we only generated .59 cents in economic growth.

Great, tax cuts add growth, tax hikes hurt growth.

Reductions in the tax rate actually hurt the economy

Why do you run from your claim?

We do need to cut spending. Defense spending. That is Obama's biggest increase.

Obama increased defense spending? Show me.

Uh, no we lose more in revenue than we do gain in the private market. That makes it a LOSS. We gained more in debt than we do in economic growth. Christ dude. This logic is as easy as 2+2.

Again, you dumbass. If you read the OP maybe you would learn something. Obama increased defense spending by 800 billion a year. I cited the source.

Uh, no we lose more in revenue than we do gain in the private market. That makes it a LOSS.

Increased money in the hands of the people, increased growth and less money in the hands of government.

Win-win-win.

Obama increased defense spending by 800 billion a year.

The Washington Post says you're an idiot.

You are such an idiot. What do you think pays for services such as public schools, defense, and our justice system? Taxes you moron. As in REVENUE. The government needs money to pay for shit. Without it, we borrow more. That puts us more in debt.

My god. I bet I could find a 6 year old on the street that would understand this logic.

What exactly am I supped to take away from this graph that you randomly found in Google?

 

[ShawnChris13]

I think everyone's getting too caught up in single issues when these arguments span several without enough space to address every individual point.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Uh, no we lose more in revenue than we do gain in the private market. That makes it a LOSS. We gained more in debt than we do in economic growth. Christ dude. This logic is as easy as 2+2.

Again, you dumbass. If you read the OP maybe you would learn something. Obama increased defense spending by 800 billion a year. I cited the source.

Uh, no we lose more in revenue than we do gain in the private market. That makes it a LOSS.

Increased money in the hands of the people, increased growth and less money in the hands of government.

Win-win-win.

Obama increased defense spending by 800 billion a year.

The Washington Post says you're an idiot.

You are such an idiot. What do you think pays for services such as public schools, defense, and our justice system? Taxes you moron. As in REVENUE. The government needs money to pay for shit. Without it, we borrow more. That puts us more in debt.

My god. I bet I could find a 6 year old on the street that would understand this logic.

What exactly am I supped to take away from this graph that you randomly found in Google?

The graph I found at the Washinton Post that showed defense spending has never exceeded $800 billion a year?
Despite your idiotic claim that Obama increased it by $800 billion a year.

Yes, you moron, we all know that taxes pay for public services.
We know that if you reduce revenues and increase spending, debt increases.
None of those facts are proof that cuts in tax rates have hurt the economy.

Is English your second language?
Do you understand the word "prove" or the word "proof"?

You made a claim. Now prove it. With facts.
Show proof your claim is correct.

 

[Billy000]

Uh, no we lose more in revenue than we do gain in the private market. That makes it a LOSS.

Increased money in the hands of the people, increased growth and less money in the hands of government.

Win-win-win.

Obama increased defense spending by 800 billion a year.

The Washington Post says you're an idiot.

You are such an idiot. What do you think pays for services such as public schools, defense, and our justice system? Taxes you moron. As in REVENUE. The government needs money to pay for shit. Without it, we borrow more. That puts us more in debt.

My god. I bet I could find a 6 year old on the street that would understand this logic.

What exactly am I supped to take away from this graph that you randomly found in Google?

The graph I found at the Washinton Post that showed defense spending has never exceeded $800 billion a year?
Despite your idiotic claim that Obama increased it by $800 billion a year.

Yes, you moron, we all know that taxes pay for public services.
We know that if you reduce revenues and increase spending, debt increases.
None of those facts are proof that cuts in tax rates have hurt the economy.

Is English your second language?
Do you understand the word "prove" or the word "proof"?

You made a claim. Now prove it. With facts.
Show proof your claim is correct.

Once again if you read the ******* thread you would know what I already provided many sources for this idiot. Look this explains it.


Obama: Deficits falling at fastest rate since WWII. Is that true? - CSMonitor.com

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You are such an idiot. What do you think pays for services such as public schools, defense, and our justice system? Taxes you moron. As in REVENUE. The government needs money to pay for shit. Without it, we borrow more. That puts us more in debt.

My god. I bet I could find a 6 year old on the street that would understand this logic.

What exactly am I supped to take away from this graph that you randomly found in Google?

The graph I found at the Washinton Post that showed defense spending has never exceeded $800 billion a year?
Despite your idiotic claim that Obama increased it by $800 billion a year.

Yes, you moron, we all know that taxes pay for public services.
We know that if you reduce revenues and increase spending, debt increases.
None of those facts are proof that cuts in tax rates have hurt the economy.

Is English your second language?
Do you understand the word "prove" or the word "proof"?

You made a claim. Now prove it. With facts.
Show proof your claim is correct.

Once again if you read the ******* thread you would know what I already provided many sources for this idiot. Look this explains it.


Obama: Deficits falling at fastest rate since WWII. Is that true? - CSMonitor.com

Looked at your link.
Didn't see the proof that cuts in tax rates hurt the economy.
Maybe you should cut and paste the proof I must have missed in your link?
Thanks!

 

[Billy000]

The graph I found at the Washinton Post that showed defense spending has never exceeded $800 billion a year?
Despite your idiotic claim that Obama increased it by $800 billion a year.

Yes, you moron, we all know that taxes pay for public services.
We know that if you reduce revenues and increase spending, debt increases.
None of those facts are proof that cuts in tax rates have hurt the economy.

Is English your second language?
Do you understand the word "prove" or the word "proof"?

You made a claim. Now prove it. With facts.
Show proof your claim is correct.

Once again if you read the ******* thread you would know what I already provided many sources for this idiot. Look this explains it.


Obama: Deficits falling at fastest rate since WWII. Is that true? - CSMonitor.com

Looked at your link.
Didn't see the proof that cuts in tax rates hurt the economy.
Maybe you should cut and paste the proof I must have missed in your link?
Thanks!

So you're saying increasing our national debt doesn't hurt the economy? You're an idiot.