How Are We Gonna Pay for the $7.9 Trillion that Obama Added to the National Debt?

[healthmyths]

Why don't you guys just go away!

You have ALL been asked repeatedly to show where a federal tax cut has cost the government money, and not a ONE of you has been able to.

Until you can, your narrative on that is null and void!

Taxes were cut in 1981 and 1982 and federal income tax revenues declined both of those years. Taxes were cut in 2001, 2002 and 203 and federal income tax revenues declined those years.

Liar! Show me where-) Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 - Tax Foundation

Your own link shows it. Though I apologize, I got 1 of the years wrong. I said federal income tax revenue fell in 1981 and 1982, but it was 1982 and 1983.

LOL, I was waiting, I really was, I did it on purpose-)

You see, I like when you guys pounce-)

But you see, the chart I gave you was revenue by source so you would, lol.

Now let us see how much the government ACTUALLY took in counting ALL revenues, shall we-) I am hoping all Leftists are licking their chops, I really am!

Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1980-2007 - Federal State Local Data

Now if everyone looks, in 2003 Bush moved the tax cuts from 2006. What happened to total revenue.

Also notice, what happened AFTER Clinton cut the tax in 1997?

Show us the loss, show it to us please-)

NOTE: Nothing comparable happened under Obama that cause a lot of economic duress under Bush...BUT Bush STILL outperformed Obama!
Including TARP which was charged as a Bush deficit contributor...BUT was paid back under Obama PLUS a profit... and OBAMA SPENT it ALL!

 

[healthmyths]

Your own link shows it. Though I apologize, I got 1 of the years wrong. I said federal income tax revenue fell in 1981 and 1982, but it was 1982 and 1983.

LOL, I was waiting, I really was, I did it on purpose-)

You see, I like when you guys pounce-)

But you see, the chart I gave you was revenue by source so you would, lol.

Now let us see how much the government ACTUALLY took in counting ALL revenues, shall we-) I am hoping all Leftists are licking their chops, I really am!

Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1980-2007 - Federal State Local Data

Now if everyone looks, in 2003 Bush moved the tax cuts from 2006. What happened to total revenue.

Also notice, what happened AFTER Clinton cut the tax in 1997?

Show us the loss, show it to us please-)

Bush had already cut taxes in 2001, 2001 and 2003. Federal income tax revenues fell all those years.

You skip past those pesky facts to point to rising revenues starting in 2004 but you falsely attribute that rise to the tax cuts (which already saw 3 years of decline) when it was actually the real estate bubble, which began expanding uncontrollably around 2004, which inflated the economy and increased tax revenues.

And why did I? Explain to the people!

Well no, let me---------->

I think Bush sucked as much as Obama, or almost as much, but let me tell everyone what ACTUALLY happened.............

Bush cut taxes on a phase in that Democrats agreed to. The reason both partys' agreed was the recession Bush was handed to him at the end of the Clinton Presidency. (did we forget about that?) And I am sure the phase in would have worked as both of the political partys' agreed to, until 9-11. When that happened, the economy TANKED, and those alive who actually were old enough to understand, know why.

Anyway, the tax cuts were to be phased in and take full effect in 2006 I believe, but the economy was so bad after 9-11, something had to be done.

In 2003, Bush decided to lobby congress to put in the tax cuts that were left together, to shock the economy back to normalcy. Look at charts that show what happened AFTER the 2003 "instant move up," and you will see how revenues to the federal government went wild.

Fauns assertion is just cherry picking. He doesn't say it, but implies that the tax cuts that were promised caused the economy to tank, and NOTHING could be further from the truth. 9-11 did it, and that caused the promised tax cuts into being invoked in 2003, instead of being played out until 2006. The growth was astounding, and the treasury grew massively, although our leaders like nothing more than to spend more money, when money comes in unexpectedly.

Bush was Obama lite, Obama was Bush heavy. Neither one of them deserve our time of day, not that everything both of them did was 100% wrong, but rather, to much of what they both did was not correct!

Dayam, you just can’t stop lying, can ya, lying con?

The 2001 recession began in March, 2001 and wasn’t determined until November, 2001. Meanwhile, Bush campaigned on cutting taxes a year earlier. And with his first tax cut passing in June, 2001, how the **** were the parties agreeing to anything regarding a recession that wouldn’t be declared for another 5 months???

Scratch a conservative and find a liar.

The more you post, the deeper your hole is getting.

And of course YOU are so dumb you think an oil tanker can turn around on a dime!
DIMWIT!!! The economy is LIKE an OIL TANKER... IT takes months if not years to decline and almost as long to recover!
So this crap about a "recession starting on 3/1/01 is just that! It started declining in 2000!

And this CRAP about Obama getting the credit for economic turnaround!
HE HAD NOTHING TO with it but slow it down with dumb economic statements like these:

 

[healthmyths]

Now if everyone looks, in 2003 Bush moved the tax cuts from 2006. What happened to total revenue.

Also notice, what happened AFTER Clinton cut the tax in 1997?

Show us the loss, show it to us please-)

Bush had already cut taxes in 2001, 2001 and 2003. Federal income tax revenues fell all those years.

You skip past those pesky facts to point to rising revenues starting in 2004 but you falsely attribute that rise to the tax cuts (which already saw 3 years of decline) when it was actually the real estate bubble, which began expanding uncontrollably around 2004, which inflated the economy and increased tax revenues.

And why did I? Explain to the people!

Well no, let me---------->

I think Bush sucked as much as Obama, or almost as much, but let me tell everyone what ACTUALLY happened.............

Bush cut taxes on a phase in that Democrats agreed to. The reason both partys' agreed was the recession Bush was handed to him at the end of the Clinton Presidency. (did we forget about that?) And I am sure the phase in would have worked as both of the political partys' agreed to, until 9-11. When that happened, the economy TANKED, and those alive who actually were old enough to understand, know why.

Anyway, the tax cuts were to be phased in and take full effect in 2006 I believe, but the economy was so bad after 9-11, something had to be done.

In 2003, Bush decided to lobby congress to put in the tax cuts that were left together, to shock the economy back to normalcy. Look at charts that show what happened AFTER the 2003 "instant move up," and you will see how revenues to the federal government went wild.

Fauns assertion is just cherry picking. He doesn't say it, but implies that the tax cuts that were promised caused the economy to tank, and NOTHING could be further from the truth. 9-11 did it, and that caused the promised tax cuts into being invoked in 2003, instead of being played out until 2006. The growth was astounding, and the treasury grew massively, although our leaders like nothing more than to spend more money, when money comes in unexpectedly.

Bush was Obama lite, Obama was Bush heavy. Neither one of them deserve our time of day, not that everything both of them did was 100% wrong, but rather, to much of what they both did was not correct!

Dayam, you just can’t stop lying, can ya, lying con?

The 2001 recession began in March, 2001 and wasn’t determined until November, 2001. Meanwhile, Bush campaigned on cutting taxes a year earlier. And with his first tax cut passing in June, 2001, how the **** were the parties agreeing to anything regarding a recession that wouldn’t be declared for another 5 months???

Scratch a conservative and find a liar.

The more you post, the deeper your hole is getting.

Dude, or Dudette------------> you are again trying to obfuscate this particular part of the issue.

JUST ANSWER----------> Did we not enter a recession at the end of the Clinton Presidency? YES or NO?

2. Were NOT the Bush tax cuts supposed to be phased in through 2006? YES or NO?

3. Were they NOT pushed up in 2003 to immediate? YES or NO?

4. And did not revenue explode to the Federal Government afterwards in 2004? YES or NO!

Quit beating around the Bush, lol. (pun intended) Bush sucked it out, but even he could not screw up the massive expansion of revenue to the federal government by using a tax break.

Tell ALL of these nice people what was the revenue stream between 2003, and 2004-) Cmon, tell them, lololol. You phony-baloney!

Revenue streams down 2001...down 2002...down2003
GEEZ wonder why...hmmm... 2001.. RECESSION that started under Clinton, dot.com bust, on and yea $9 Trillion in losses between dot.com,recession and something happened 9/11?

 

[imawhosure]

Bush had already cut taxes in 2001, 2001 and 2003. Federal income tax revenues fell all those years.

You skip past those pesky facts to point to rising revenues starting in 2004 but you falsely attribute that rise to the tax cuts (which already saw 3 years of decline) when it was actually the real estate bubble, which began expanding uncontrollably around 2004, which inflated the economy and increased tax revenues.

And why did I? Explain to the people!

Well no, let me---------->

I think Bush sucked as much as Obama, or almost as much, but let me tell everyone what ACTUALLY happened.............

Bush cut taxes on a phase in that Democrats agreed to. The reason both partys' agreed was the recession Bush was handed to him at the end of the Clinton Presidency. (did we forget about that?) And I am sure the phase in would have worked as both of the political partys' agreed to, until 9-11. When that happened, the economy TANKED, and those alive who actually were old enough to understand, know why.

Anyway, the tax cuts were to be phased in and take full effect in 2006 I believe, but the economy was so bad after 9-11, something had to be done.

In 2003, Bush decided to lobby congress to put in the tax cuts that were left together, to shock the economy back to normalcy. Look at charts that show what happened AFTER the 2003 "instant move up," and you will see how revenues to the federal government went wild.

Fauns assertion is just cherry picking. He doesn't say it, but implies that the tax cuts that were promised caused the economy to tank, and NOTHING could be further from the truth. 9-11 did it, and that caused the promised tax cuts into being invoked in 2003, instead of being played out until 2006. The growth was astounding, and the treasury grew massively, although our leaders like nothing more than to spend more money, when money comes in unexpectedly.

Bush was Obama lite, Obama was Bush heavy. Neither one of them deserve our time of day, not that everything both of them did was 100% wrong, but rather, to much of what they both did was not correct!

Dayam, you just can’t stop lying, can ya, lying con?

The 2001 recession began in March, 2001 and wasn’t determined until November, 2001. Meanwhile, Bush campaigned on cutting taxes a year earlier. And with his first tax cut passing in June, 2001, how the **** were the parties agreeing to anything regarding a recession that wouldn’t be declared for another 5 months???

Scratch a conservative and find a liar.

The more you post, the deeper your hole is getting.

Dude, or Dudette------------> you are again trying to obfuscate this particular part of the issue.

JUST ANSWER----------> Did we not enter a recession at the end of the Clinton Presidency? YES or NO?

2. Were NOT the Bush tax cuts supposed to be phased in through 2006? YES or NO?

3. Were they NOT pushed up in 2003 to immediate? YES or NO?

4. And did not revenue explode to the Federal Government afterwards in 2004? YES or NO!

Quit beating around the Bush, lol. (pun intended) Bush sucked it out, but even he could not screw up the massive expansion of revenue to the federal government by using a tax break.

Tell ALL of these nice people what was the revenue stream between 2003, and 2004-) Cmon, tell them, lololol. You phony-baloney!

Revenue streams down 2001...down 2002...down2003
GEEZ wonder why...hmmm... 2001.. RECESSION that started under Clinton, dot.com bust, on and yea $9 Trillion in losses between dot.com,recession and something happened 9/11?

View attachment 171870

Health, no offense intended,

but my whole thing is that "the past gives us a blueprint for the future." We can debate on the policies of Reagan, Kennedy, Coolidge, Clinton, and Bush Jr. What we actually have from history is.........what worked........and what did not! The numbers prove this out.

There is no longer a question of if the receipts to the treasury went down or not. It is right there in the historical numbers.

Now the left will always try and put forth the question/notion of what the numbers would be IF the rates were not cut. But you can NOT prove, or disprove a question that has no facts in evidence, now can you! If we tried to explain that it would have been worse, or much worse; we would be no better than Democrats trying to spin our view. Then it would become spin V spin, which one do you like more, yes!

So my whole thing is to insure the Left does not get to LIE! I will accept their supposition on "what might have happened" and debate that with them mano-e-mano, but will NEVER allow them to lie about the factual outcome of the policies that were actually invoked. As long as we all do that, the Left has a huuuuuuuge problem.

Personally, I do not think part of the Leftist posters on here are aware of the actual facts. Some of the other Leftist posters on here are AWARE of the actual facts, but try and rally the troops through obfuscation of the numbers, keeping them unaware on the Democratic plantation through propaganda.

FACTS are the enemy of the left! While probably NOT being popular, I must say that they are "not always wrong," just most of the time, lol! Facts do not belong to a political party, they belong to reality. Facts do not care who created them.......Republican or Democrat............just that they are facts!

When a Leftist comes up with a fact that proves their point, then to argue is to lose credibility. They are NOT always wrong. EXAMPLE--------> The Kennedy tax cuts did great! We should argue that position? To do so, makes us look like fools, yes?!?!?!?!?!

To argue that the Bill Clinton economy sucked it out is also a losing position. But, to correlate WHY it was a good economy, and what caused it, is a WINNING position!

In essence, what I am saying kinda long winded is----------> History teaches all things! Until re-enacting history and what works, the Left hasn't a leg to stand on until it fails. At that time, they have a case. So far, they have no case, no matter how hard they try! At some time in the near, or far future, it may change, who knows. But until that time, continue to refute them with facts of the past. Without past success, we have no blueprint, just theory. That is what they are selling, THEORY! We tried it with Obama, and now we revert with Trump. As long as we do BETTER with reverting, the Left has a deep hole to dig out of, and that is the absolute truth!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Predictably, liberals here are screaming about how we're gonna "pay for" the $1.4 trillion that the Trump tax cuts are returning to the American people, while they refuse to admit that federal revenue has increased after every major tax cut since the early 1900s.

Well, I would like liberals to explain how we're gonna pay for the $7.9 trillion that Obama added to the national debt. Just to be extra fair, this is not counting Obama's first year, because, technically, it was operating under Bush's last budget (even though Congress jacked up spending in Bush's last year over his objections, even though Obama approved a huge spending boost to the FY 2009 budget right after coming to office, and even though Obama would have added much more debt had it not been for Republican-imposed sequestration). National debt increases by president in dollar amounts and percentages:

Obama: $7.9 trillion/68 percent
Bush Jr.: $5.8 trillion/101 percent
Clinton: $0/0 percent
Bush Sr.: $2.8 trillion/54 percent
Reagan: $1.8 trillion/186 percent

Again, if Obama had not been modestly restrained by a Republican-controlled Congress, he would have added a lot more debt. Without Obama's and the Democrats' pressure for higher and higher spending, spending would have been substantially less after the Republicans took control of Congress.

Presidents didn't used to increase the debt by such large percentages. Debt increases used to be in low double digits or in single digits in terms of the percent of the increase, which is the most important number. Dollar values change over time because of inflation, which is why the percent of the increase is the most important figure:

LBJ: $42 billion/13 percent
JFK: $23 billion/8 percent
Eisenhower: $23 billion/9 percent
Truman: $7 billion/3 percent

So, liberals, how are we gonna pay for the $7.9 trillion that Obama added to the debt? How? Or do you only worry about "paying for" something when it involves letting Americans keep more of their own money?

Which President Added Most to the U.S. Debt?

the numbers on president Obama include baby bush's bail out. Dick Cheney said, and I quote "deficits don't matter".

and they only matter to rightwingnuts when a democrat is running things. if it did matter, you hacks wouldn't be supporting a tax cut for the top 1%

the numbers on president Obama include baby bush's bail out

The Bush bank TARP bailout was paid during Bush's term, repaid, at a big profit, during Obama's term.

 

[toobfreak]

How Are We Gonna Pay for the $7.9 Trillion that Obama Added to the National Debt?

EASY. Send the bill to Barry and Mitchelle and their two kids. Have them pay 90% of all their income and savings to pay it back for the next ten generations or until it is all paid back.

 

[Faun]

Taxes were cut in 1981 and 1982 and federal income tax revenues declined both of those years. Taxes were cut in 2001, 2002 and 203 and federal income tax revenues declined those years.

Liar! Show me where-) Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 - Tax Foundation

Your own link shows it. Though I apologize, I got 1 of the years wrong. I said federal income tax revenue fell in 1981 and 1982, but it was 1982 and 1983.

LOL, I was waiting, I really was, I did it on purpose-)

You see, I like when you guys pounce-)

But you see, the chart I gave you was revenue by source so you would, lol.

Now let us see how much the government ACTUALLY took in counting ALL revenues, shall we-) I am hoping all Leftists are licking their chops, I really am!

Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1980-2007 - Federal State Local Data

Now if everyone looks, in 2003 Bush moved the tax cuts from 2006. What happened to total revenue.

Also notice, what happened AFTER Clinton cut the tax in 1997?

Show us the loss, show it to us please-)

NOTE: Nothing comparable happened under Obama that cause a lot of economic duress under Bush...BUT Bush STILL outperformed Obama!
Including TARP which was charged as a Bush deficit contributor...BUT was paid back under Obama PLUS a profit... and OBAMA SPENT it ALL!

View attachment 171867

Liar.

 

[Faun]

And why did I? Explain to the people!

Well no, let me---------->

I think Bush sucked as much as Obama, or almost as much, but let me tell everyone what ACTUALLY happened.............

Bush cut taxes on a phase in that Democrats agreed to. The reason both partys' agreed was the recession Bush was handed to him at the end of the Clinton Presidency. (did we forget about that?) And I am sure the phase in would have worked as both of the political partys' agreed to, until 9-11. When that happened, the economy TANKED, and those alive who actually were old enough to understand, know why.

Anyway, the tax cuts were to be phased in and take full effect in 2006 I believe, but the economy was so bad after 9-11, something had to be done.

In 2003, Bush decided to lobby congress to put in the tax cuts that were left together, to shock the economy back to normalcy. Look at charts that show what happened AFTER the 2003 "instant move up," and you will see how revenues to the federal government went wild.

Fauns assertion is just cherry picking. He doesn't say it, but implies that the tax cuts that were promised caused the economy to tank, and NOTHING could be further from the truth. 9-11 did it, and that caused the promised tax cuts into being invoked in 2003, instead of being played out until 2006. The growth was astounding, and the treasury grew massively, although our leaders like nothing more than to spend more money, when money comes in unexpectedly.

Bush was Obama lite, Obama was Bush heavy. Neither one of them deserve our time of day, not that everything both of them did was 100% wrong, but rather, to much of what they both did was not correct!

Dayam, you just can’t stop lying, can ya, lying con?

The 2001 recession began in March, 2001 and wasn’t determined until November, 2001. Meanwhile, Bush campaigned on cutting taxes a year earlier. And with his first tax cut passing in June, 2001, how the **** were the parties agreeing to anything regarding a recession that wouldn’t be declared for another 5 months???

Scratch a conservative and find a liar.

The more you post, the deeper your hole is getting.

Dude, or Dudette------------> you are again trying to obfuscate this particular part of the issue.

JUST ANSWER----------> Did we not enter a recession at the end of the Clinton Presidency? YES or NO?

2. Were NOT the Bush tax cuts supposed to be phased in through 2006? YES or NO?

3. Were they NOT pushed up in 2003 to immediate? YES or NO?

4. And did not revenue explode to the Federal Government afterwards in 2004? YES or NO!

Quit beating around the Bush, lol. (pun intended) Bush sucked it out, but even he could not screw up the massive expansion of revenue to the federal government by using a tax break.

Tell ALL of these nice people what was the revenue stream between 2003, and 2004-) Cmon, tell them, lololol. You phony-baloney!

I already did, ya lying con. The housing bubble. It was already growing rapidly but began exploding at some point in 2003, going full retard in 2004.

So, you are suggesting that the increase in revenue was due to the housing bubble? OK, maybe we can agree on that. We could also say that.........the Clinton expansion was due to the dot com bubble, couldn't we? We could also say that.........the Reagan expansion was due to pent up demand, and now lower interest rates too, couldn't we?

Now I bet you think I am trying to set you up on this one, but that is NOT true. All of the questions in my last sentence could easily be construed as accurate, and probably closer to the truth then many on either side want to admit.

But here is the deal-----------> WHY, yes WHY if these questions are accurate, are they even CLOSE to accurate?

ANSWER-------->Because all invested money that is not stupid, takes the path of least resistance. PLEASE POGO, read that previous sentence again!

Regardless of if Republican or Democrat, our economy is touched by what our politicians think, then enact. If lobbyists, or government officials want you to buy something, they promote it through a tax savings. EXAMPLE----------> If I pay 1000 bucks for rent a month, but if I buy a place it costs 1075 a month........but the government gives me a 75 buck tax break while my property rises in value, I am a damn fool not to buy. Can I have an amen?

You see Pogo, I am not an advocate for tax breaks perse', unless the tax breaks allow fair and equal access to allow YOU to decide what YOU want to buy by fair price, and not a falsely lowered price, because of government mandate on what they THINK you ought to buy, thus giving you a break on the product(s) of their choice that they think are good for you.

This interference by the government, causes bubbles. We seen it with housing. the dot com, and autos after the clunkers program. All done in good theory, but in actual practice, absolutely terrible!

All these failed programs from our BRILLIANT leaders from BOTH political entities; where did the actual money come from? Same place our tax break money came from, from us!

POGO, I do not agree with you on much of anything, do I? And yet, you taking YOUR money and deciding what to do with it, is a far better economic signal to all of us, then letting the government decide what YOU should buy by giving breaks for certain consumables, sending everyone watching a false economic signal.

This is NOT just a Democratic problem, it is BOTH political entities.

So you ask, what has this got to do with tax cuts? Good question!

ANSWER-------------> If we allow you to do what YOU want to do without greasing the skids towards what anyone wants, then you will do what is best for you. The more money we allow you to make those decisions with, the stronger the signal to everyone. It shows in the numbers!

This means that if YOU want more beef, I need to invest in MORE BEEF! If you want more chicken, then chicken farms it is.

But, if I allow the government to subsidize chicken when you really want beef, I have done you no service.

Why?

Because if I invest in beef, the price will fall, meaning YOU get what you want by me reading the real and accurate signals.

Why?

Because by all of us investing, the amount of beef will rise, meaning at some point, the supply will exceed the demand forcing the price down, meaning you eventually get what you want. Price supports by government, skew this relationship, and you get an over abundance of chicken!

So by allowing you to keep as much of your money as possible, it helps quickly inform me of what you really want as far as products. That makes me wealthy. You too, if you care to participate!

So what you want for dinner POGO? Chicken? Steak? Are you a vegetarian and want green beans and rice? Use your tax break to buy stuff, and I promise that not only will you have it, the price will come down as we invest in it, to make a profit-) Follow our lead, and like it or not, you will be more wealthy too.

a) none of that touches on whether or not tax cuts increase tax revenue. They don’t.

b) I’m not Pogo. You’re so far gone, you don’t even know who you’re talking to, even though you’re clicking reply to my posts — which should have offered you a huge clue.

 

[Faun]

And of course YOU are so dumb you think an oil tanker can turn around on a dime!
DIMWIT!!! The economy is LIKE an OIL TANKER... IT takes months if not years to decline and almost as long to recover!
So this crap about a "recession starting on 3/1/01 is just that! It started declining in 2000!

And this CRAP about Obama getting the credit for economic turnaround!
HE HAD NOTHING TO with it but slow it down with dumb economic statements like these:

View attachment 171869

Imbecile...

Who’s doing that? We were still in a recession in 2009 as 2009 trends continued from 2008; just as 2017 trends continued from 2016. The economy doesn’t turn on a dime.

... now don’t you look stupid.

 

[Faun]

And why did I? Explain to the people!

Well no, let me---------->

I think Bush sucked as much as Obama, or almost as much, but let me tell everyone what ACTUALLY happened.............

Bush cut taxes on a phase in that Democrats agreed to. The reason both partys' agreed was the recession Bush was handed to him at the end of the Clinton Presidency. (did we forget about that?) And I am sure the phase in would have worked as both of the political partys' agreed to, until 9-11. When that happened, the economy TANKED, and those alive who actually were old enough to understand, know why.

Anyway, the tax cuts were to be phased in and take full effect in 2006 I believe, but the economy was so bad after 9-11, something had to be done.

In 2003, Bush decided to lobby congress to put in the tax cuts that were left together, to shock the economy back to normalcy. Look at charts that show what happened AFTER the 2003 "instant move up," and you will see how revenues to the federal government went wild.

Fauns assertion is just cherry picking. He doesn't say it, but implies that the tax cuts that were promised caused the economy to tank, and NOTHING could be further from the truth. 9-11 did it, and that caused the promised tax cuts into being invoked in 2003, instead of being played out until 2006. The growth was astounding, and the treasury grew massively, although our leaders like nothing more than to spend more money, when money comes in unexpectedly.

Bush was Obama lite, Obama was Bush heavy. Neither one of them deserve our time of day, not that everything both of them did was 100% wrong, but rather, to much of what they both did was not correct!

Dayam, you just can’t stop lying, can ya, lying con?

The 2001 recession began in March, 2001 and wasn’t determined until November, 2001. Meanwhile, Bush campaigned on cutting taxes a year earlier. And with his first tax cut passing in June, 2001, how the **** were the parties agreeing to anything regarding a recession that wouldn’t be declared for another 5 months???

Scratch a conservative and find a liar.

The more you post, the deeper your hole is getting.

Dude, or Dudette------------> you are again trying to obfuscate this particular part of the issue.

JUST ANSWER----------> Did we not enter a recession at the end of the Clinton Presidency? YES or NO?

2. Were NOT the Bush tax cuts supposed to be phased in through 2006? YES or NO?

3. Were they NOT pushed up in 2003 to immediate? YES or NO?

4. And did not revenue explode to the Federal Government afterwards in 2004? YES or NO!

Quit beating around the Bush, lol. (pun intended) Bush sucked it out, but even he could not screw up the massive expansion of revenue to the federal government by using a tax break.

Tell ALL of these nice people what was the revenue stream between 2003, and 2004-) Cmon, tell them, lololol. You phony-baloney!

Revenue streams down 2001...down 2002...down2003
GEEZ wonder why...hmmm... 2001.. RECESSION that started under Clinton, dot.com bust, on and yea $9 Trillion in losses between dot.com,recession and something happened 9/11?

View attachment 171870

Health, no offense intended,

but my whole thing is that "the past gives us a blueprint for the future." We can debate on the policies of Reagan, Kennedy, Coolidge, Clinton, and Bush Jr. What we actually have from history is.........what worked........and what did not! The numbers prove this out.

There is no longer a question of if the receipts to the treasury went down or not. It is right there in the historical numbers.

Now the left will always try and put forth the question/notion of what the numbers would be IF the rates were not cut. But you can NOT prove, or disprove a question that has no facts in evidence, now can you! If we tried to explain that it would have been worse, or much worse; we would be no better than Democrats trying to spin our view. Then it would become spin V spin, which one do you like more, yes!

So my whole thing is to insure the Left does not get to LIE! I will accept their supposition on "what might have happened" and debate that with them mano-e-mano, but will NEVER allow them to lie about the factual outcome of the policies that were actually invoked. As long as we all do that, the Left has a huuuuuuuge problem.

Personally, I do not think part of the Leftist posters on here are aware of the actual facts. Some of the other Leftist posters on here are AWARE of the actual facts, but try and rally the troops through obfuscation of the numbers, keeping them unaware on the Democratic plantation through propaganda.

FACTS are the enemy of the left! While probably NOT being popular, I must say that they are "not always wrong," just most of the time, lol! Facts do not belong to a political party, they belong to reality. Facts do not care who created them.......Republican or Democrat............just that they are facts!

When a Leftist comes up with a fact that proves their point, then to argue is to lose credibility. They are NOT always wrong. EXAMPLE--------> The Kennedy tax cuts did great! We should argue that position? To do so, makes us look like fools, yes?!?!?!?!?!

To argue that the Bill Clinton economy sucked it out is also a losing position. But, to correlate WHY it was a good economy, and what caused it, is a WINNING position!

In essence, what I am saying kinda long winded is----------> History teaches all things! Until re-enacting history and what works, the Left hasn't a leg to stand on until it fails. At that time, they have a case. So far, they have no case, no matter how hard they try! At some time in the near, or far future, it may change, who knows. But until that time, continue to refute them with facts of the past. Without past success, we have no blueprint, just theory. That is what they are selling, THEORY! We tried it with Obama, and now we revert with Trump. As long as we do BETTER with reverting, the Left has a deep hole to dig out of, and that is the absolute truth!

Lying doesn’t help you at all. Your own links showed that federal income tax revenues declined in 1982, 1983, 2001, 2002 and 2003. That would not have been the case had tax cuts generated tax revenue.

 

[Timmy]

LOL, I was waiting, I really was, I did it on purpose-)

You see, I like when you guys pounce-)

But you see, the chart I gave you was revenue by source so you would, lol.

Now let us see how much the government ACTUALLY took in counting ALL revenues, shall we-) I am hoping all Leftists are licking their chops, I really am!

Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1980-2007 - Federal State Local Data

Now if everyone looks, in 2003 Bush moved the tax cuts from 2006. What happened to total revenue.

Also notice, what happened AFTER Clinton cut the tax in 1997?

Show us the loss, show it to us please-)

Bush had already cut taxes in 2001, 2001 and 2003. Federal income tax revenues fell all those years.

You skip past those pesky facts to point to rising revenues starting in 2004 but you falsely attribute that rise to the tax cuts (which already saw 3 years of decline) when it was actually the real estate bubble, which began expanding uncontrollably around 2004, which inflated the economy and increased tax revenues.

And why did I? Explain to the people!

Well no, let me---------->

I think Bush sucked as much as Obama, or almost as much, but let me tell everyone what ACTUALLY happened.............

Bush cut taxes on a phase in that Democrats agreed to. The reason both partys' agreed was the recession Bush was handed to him at the end of the Clinton Presidency. (did we forget about that?) And I am sure the phase in would have worked as both of the political partys' agreed to, until 9-11. When that happened, the economy TANKED, and those alive who actually were old enough to understand, know why.

Anyway, the tax cuts were to be phased in and take full effect in 2006 I believe, but the economy was so bad after 9-11, something had to be done.

In 2003, Bush decided to lobby congress to put in the tax cuts that were left together, to shock the economy back to normalcy. Look at charts that show what happened AFTER the 2003 "instant move up," and you will see how revenues to the federal government went wild.

Fauns assertion is just cherry picking. He doesn't say it, but implies that the tax cuts that were promised caused the economy to tank, and NOTHING could be further from the truth. 9-11 did it, and that caused the promised tax cuts into being invoked in 2003, instead of being played out until 2006. The growth was astounding, and the treasury grew massively, although our leaders like nothing more than to spend more money, when money comes in unexpectedly.

Bush was Obama lite, Obama was Bush heavy. Neither one of them deserve our time of day, not that everything both of them did was 100% wrong, but rather, to much of what they both did was not correct!

Dayam, you just can’t stop lying, can ya, lying con?

The 2001 recession began in March, 2001 and wasn’t determined until November, 2001. Meanwhile, Bush campaigned on cutting taxes a year earlier. And with his first tax cut passing in June, 2001, how the **** were the parties agreeing to anything regarding a recession that wouldn’t be declared for another 5 months???

Scratch a conservative and find a liar.

The more you post, the deeper your hole is getting.

And of course YOU are so dumb you think an oil tanker can turn around on a dime!
DIMWIT!!! The economy is LIKE an OIL TANKER... IT takes months if not years to decline and almost as long to recover!
So this crap about a "recession starting on 3/1/01 is just that! It started declining in 2000!

And this CRAP about Obama getting the credit for economic turnaround!
HE HAD NOTHING TO with it but slow it down with dumb economic statements like these:

View attachment 171869

I call BS !

Out of the worst hurricanes to hit the US , only Katrina was during the bush years .

Top Ten Hurricanes to Hit The United States

 

[Pogo]

Dayam, you just can’t stop lying, can ya, lying con?

The 2001 recession began in March, 2001 and wasn’t determined until November, 2001. Meanwhile, Bush campaigned on cutting taxes a year earlier. And with his first tax cut passing in June, 2001, how the **** were the parties agreeing to anything regarding a recession that wouldn’t be declared for another 5 months???

Scratch a conservative and find a liar.

The more you post, the deeper your hole is getting.

Dude, or Dudette------------> you are again trying to obfuscate this particular part of the issue.

JUST ANSWER----------> Did we not enter a recession at the end of the Clinton Presidency? YES or NO?

2. Were NOT the Bush tax cuts supposed to be phased in through 2006? YES or NO?

3. Were they NOT pushed up in 2003 to immediate? YES or NO?

4. And did not revenue explode to the Federal Government afterwards in 2004? YES or NO!

Quit beating around the Bush, lol. (pun intended) Bush sucked it out, but even he could not screw up the massive expansion of revenue to the federal government by using a tax break.

Tell ALL of these nice people what was the revenue stream between 2003, and 2004-) Cmon, tell them, lololol. You phony-baloney!

I already did, ya lying con. The housing bubble. It was already growing rapidly but began exploding at some point in 2003, going full retard in 2004.

So, you are suggesting that the increase in revenue was due to the housing bubble? OK, maybe we can agree on that. We could also say that.........the Clinton expansion was due to the dot com bubble, couldn't we? We could also say that.........the Reagan expansion was due to pent up demand, and now lower interest rates too, couldn't we?

Now I bet you think I am trying to set you up on this one, but that is NOT true. All of the questions in my last sentence could easily be construed as accurate, and probably closer to the truth then many on either side want to admit.

But here is the deal-----------> WHY, yes WHY if these questions are accurate, are they even CLOSE to accurate?

ANSWER-------->Because all invested money that is not stupid, takes the path of least resistance. PLEASE POGO, read that previous sentence again!

Regardless of if Republican or Democrat, our economy is touched by what our politicians think, then enact. If lobbyists, or government officials want you to buy something, they promote it through a tax savings. EXAMPLE----------> If I pay 1000 bucks for rent a month, but if I buy a place it costs 1075 a month........but the government gives me a 75 buck tax break while my property rises in value, I am a damn fool not to buy. Can I have an amen?

You see Pogo, I am not an advocate for tax breaks perse', unless the tax breaks allow fair and equal access to allow YOU to decide what YOU want to buy by fair price, and not a falsely lowered price, because of government mandate on what they THINK you ought to buy, thus giving you a break on the product(s) of their choice that they think are good for you.

This interference by the government, causes bubbles. We seen it with housing. the dot com, and autos after the clunkers program. All done in good theory, but in actual practice, absolutely terrible!

All these failed programs from our BRILLIANT leaders from BOTH political entities; where did the actual money come from? Same place our tax break money came from, from us!

POGO, I do not agree with you on much of anything, do I? And yet, you taking YOUR money and deciding what to do with it, is a far better economic signal to all of us, then letting the government decide what YOU should buy by giving breaks for certain consumables, sending everyone watching a false economic signal.

This is NOT just a Democratic problem, it is BOTH political entities.

So you ask, what has this got to do with tax cuts? Good question!

ANSWER-------------> If we allow you to do what YOU want to do without greasing the skids towards what anyone wants, then you will do what is best for you. The more money we allow you to make those decisions with, the stronger the signal to everyone. It shows in the numbers!

This means that if YOU want more beef, I need to invest in MORE BEEF! If you want more chicken, then chicken farms it is.

But, if I allow the government to subsidize chicken when you really want beef, I have done you no service.

Why?

Because if I invest in beef, the price will fall, meaning YOU get what you want by me reading the real and accurate signals.

Why?

Because by all of us investing, the amount of beef will rise, meaning at some point, the supply will exceed the demand forcing the price down, meaning you eventually get what you want. Price supports by government, skew this relationship, and you get an over abundance of chicken!

So by allowing you to keep as much of your money as possible, it helps quickly inform me of what you really want as far as products. That makes me wealthy. You too, if you care to participate!

So what you want for dinner POGO? Chicken? Steak? Are you a vegetarian and want green beans and rice? Use your tax break to buy stuff, and I promise that not only will you have it, the price will come down as we invest in it, to make a profit-) Follow our lead, and like it or not, you will be more wealthy too.

For the record (1) I'm not seeking more beef, since I don't touch the stuff, (2) I've never even been in this thread before, and (3) my name is not an acronym. Oh and (4) I have not decided on dinner yet, thanks.

That was weird I must say.

/thread

 

[mikegriffith1]

And the GOP has controlled the purse strings since January 2015.

And which party has threatened to filibuster the budget if they don't get what they want?

BWA-HA-HA-HA!

Sorry. The GOP owns Congress and the White House.

NO excuses.

In other words, don't bother you with facts, history, and reality.

[/QUOTE]

OH SNAP [/QUOTE]

Sigh. . . . And what did he want the additional spending for? And why didn't Congress approve it? Who blocked it by threatening to filibuster?

You're refusal to acknowledge reality is amazing.

 

[imawhosure]

Dayam, you just can’t stop lying, can ya, lying con?

The 2001 recession began in March, 2001 and wasn’t determined until November, 2001. Meanwhile, Bush campaigned on cutting taxes a year earlier. And with his first tax cut passing in June, 2001, how the **** were the parties agreeing to anything regarding a recession that wouldn’t be declared for another 5 months???

Scratch a conservative and find a liar.

The more you post, the deeper your hole is getting.

Dude, or Dudette------------> you are again trying to obfuscate this particular part of the issue.

JUST ANSWER----------> Did we not enter a recession at the end of the Clinton Presidency? YES or NO?

2. Were NOT the Bush tax cuts supposed to be phased in through 2006? YES or NO?

3. Were they NOT pushed up in 2003 to immediate? YES or NO?

4. And did not revenue explode to the Federal Government afterwards in 2004? YES or NO!

Quit beating around the Bush, lol. (pun intended) Bush sucked it out, but even he could not screw up the massive expansion of revenue to the federal government by using a tax break.

Tell ALL of these nice people what was the revenue stream between 2003, and 2004-) Cmon, tell them, lololol. You phony-baloney!

I already did, ya lying con. The housing bubble. It was already growing rapidly but began exploding at some point in 2003, going full retard in 2004.

So, you are suggesting that the increase in revenue was due to the housing bubble? OK, maybe we can agree on that. We could also say that.........the Clinton expansion was due to the dot com bubble, couldn't we? We could also say that.........the Reagan expansion was due to pent up demand, and now lower interest rates too, couldn't we?

Now I bet you think I am trying to set you up on this one, but that is NOT true. All of the questions in my last sentence could easily be construed as accurate, and probably closer to the truth then many on either side want to admit.

But here is the deal-----------> WHY, yes WHY if these questions are accurate, are they even CLOSE to accurate?

ANSWER-------->Because all invested money that is not stupid, takes the path of least resistance. PLEASE POGO, read that previous sentence again!

Regardless of if Republican or Democrat, our economy is touched by what our politicians think, then enact. If lobbyists, or government officials want you to buy something, they promote it through a tax savings. EXAMPLE----------> If I pay 1000 bucks for rent a month, but if I buy a place it costs 1075 a month........but the government gives me a 75 buck tax break while my property rises in value, I am a damn fool not to buy. Can I have an amen?

You see Pogo, I am not an advocate for tax breaks perse', unless the tax breaks allow fair and equal access to allow YOU to decide what YOU want to buy by fair price, and not a falsely lowered price, because of government mandate on what they THINK you ought to buy, thus giving you a break on the product(s) of their choice that they think are good for you.

This interference by the government, causes bubbles. We seen it with housing. the dot com, and autos after the clunkers program. All done in good theory, but in actual practice, absolutely terrible!

All these failed programs from our BRILLIANT leaders from BOTH political entities; where did the actual money come from? Same place our tax break money came from, from us!

POGO, I do not agree with you on much of anything, do I? And yet, you taking YOUR money and deciding what to do with it, is a far better economic signal to all of us, then letting the government decide what YOU should buy by giving breaks for certain consumables, sending everyone watching a false economic signal.

This is NOT just a Democratic problem, it is BOTH political entities.

So you ask, what has this got to do with tax cuts? Good question!

ANSWER-------------> If we allow you to do what YOU want to do without greasing the skids towards what anyone wants, then you will do what is best for you. The more money we allow you to make those decisions with, the stronger the signal to everyone. It shows in the numbers!

This means that if YOU want more beef, I need to invest in MORE BEEF! If you want more chicken, then chicken farms it is.

But, if I allow the government to subsidize chicken when you really want beef, I have done you no service.

Why?

Because if I invest in beef, the price will fall, meaning YOU get what you want by me reading the real and accurate signals.

Why?

Because by all of us investing, the amount of beef will rise, meaning at some point, the supply will exceed the demand forcing the price down, meaning you eventually get what you want. Price supports by government, skew this relationship, and you get an over abundance of chicken!

So by allowing you to keep as much of your money as possible, it helps quickly inform me of what you really want as far as products. That makes me wealthy. You too, if you care to participate!

So what you want for dinner POGO? Chicken? Steak? Are you a vegetarian and want green beans and rice? Use your tax break to buy stuff, and I promise that not only will you have it, the price will come down as we invest in it, to make a profit-) Follow our lead, and like it or not, you will be more wealthy too.

a) none of that touches on whether or not tax cuts increase tax revenue. They don’t.

b) I’m not Pogo. You’re so far gone, you don’t even know who you’re talking to, even though you’re clicking reply to my posts — which should have offered you a huge clue.

Dayam, you just can’t stop lying, can ya, lying con?

The 2001 recession began in March, 2001 and wasn’t determined until November, 2001. Meanwhile, Bush campaigned on cutting taxes a year earlier. And with his first tax cut passing in June, 2001, how the **** were the parties agreeing to anything regarding a recession that wouldn’t be declared for another 5 months???

Scratch a conservative and find a liar.

The more you post, the deeper your hole is getting.

Dude, or Dudette------------> you are again trying to obfuscate this particular part of the issue.

JUST ANSWER----------> Did we not enter a recession at the end of the Clinton Presidency? YES or NO?

2. Were NOT the Bush tax cuts supposed to be phased in through 2006? YES or NO?

3. Were they NOT pushed up in 2003 to immediate? YES or NO?

4. And did not revenue explode to the Federal Government afterwards in 2004? YES or NO!

Quit beating around the Bush, lol. (pun intended) Bush sucked it out, but even he could not screw up the massive expansion of revenue to the federal government by using a tax break.

Tell ALL of these nice people what was the revenue stream between 2003, and 2004-) Cmon, tell them, lololol. You phony-baloney!

Revenue streams down 2001...down 2002...down2003
GEEZ wonder why...hmmm... 2001.. RECESSION that started under Clinton, dot.com bust, on and yea $9 Trillion in losses between dot.com,recession and something happened 9/11?

View attachment 171870

Health, no offense intended,

but my whole thing is that "the past gives us a blueprint for the future." We can debate on the policies of Reagan, Kennedy, Coolidge, Clinton, and Bush Jr. What we actually have from history is.........what worked........and what did not! The numbers prove this out.

There is no longer a question of if the receipts to the treasury went down or not. It is right there in the historical numbers.

Now the left will always try and put forth the question/notion of what the numbers would be IF the rates were not cut. But you can NOT prove, or disprove a question that has no facts in evidence, now can you! If we tried to explain that it would have been worse, or much worse; we would be no better than Democrats trying to spin our view. Then it would become spin V spin, which one do you like more, yes!

So my whole thing is to insure the Left does not get to LIE! I will accept their supposition on "what might have happened" and debate that with them mano-e-mano, but will NEVER allow them to lie about the factual outcome of the policies that were actually invoked. As long as we all do that, the Left has a huuuuuuuge problem.

Personally, I do not think part of the Leftist posters on here are aware of the actual facts. Some of the other Leftist posters on here are AWARE of the actual facts, but try and rally the troops through obfuscation of the numbers, keeping them unaware on the Democratic plantation through propaganda.

FACTS are the enemy of the left! While probably NOT being popular, I must say that they are "not always wrong," just most of the time, lol! Facts do not belong to a political party, they belong to reality. Facts do not care who created them.......Republican or Democrat............just that they are facts!

When a Leftist comes up with a fact that proves their point, then to argue is to lose credibility. They are NOT always wrong. EXAMPLE--------> The Kennedy tax cuts did great! We should argue that position? To do so, makes us look like fools, yes?!?!?!?!?!

To argue that the Bill Clinton economy sucked it out is also a losing position. But, to correlate WHY it was a good economy, and what caused it, is a WINNING position!

In essence, what I am saying kinda long winded is----------> History teaches all things! Until re-enacting history and what works, the Left hasn't a leg to stand on until it fails. At that time, they have a case. So far, they have no case, no matter how hard they try! At some time in the near, or far future, it may change, who knows. But until that time, continue to refute them with facts of the past. Without past success, we have no blueprint, just theory. That is what they are selling, THEORY! We tried it with Obama, and now we revert with Trump. As long as we do BETTER with reverting, the Left has a deep hole to dig out of, and that is the absolute truth!

Lying doesn’t help you at all. Your own links showed that federal income tax revenues declined in 1982, 1983, 2001, 2002 and 2003. That would not have been the case had tax cuts generated tax revenue.

So let me get this straight, everyone watching?

Reagan enacted the tax cut in 1981, yes......or no?

So, in 1981 the income was-------->285,917 billion, yes or no?

In 1982, the income was------------->297,744 billion, yes or no?

So which is higher? Is it 285, or is it 297, lol.

In 1986, Reagan second phase went in, YES or NO?

Now in 1986, income was--------follow me here in your feeble mind--------->348,959. Yes or no?

In 1987, income to the feds was---------->392,557.

Now I know it is difficult for you Fauny, but which is higher?

-)

And so, in 2003, the Bush tax cuts were moved all forward to take effect, YES or NO!

In 2003 the income to the Fed was.......wait for it-------->793,699 billion. Yes or no!

In 2004, AFTER the cuts, the income to the Fed was------->808,959, yes or no!

Now then, is what came in for 2004 greater than, or less than what came in for 2003?

Your new name is, Fauny-Baloney-)

You lose, because EVERY government chart shows this, lol. Try again Boseaphus.

Here is the chart folks. For Leftists, your hero, Fauny-E-Baloney, just got his Leftist ass handed to him on a silver platter!

Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 - Tax Foundation

 

[healthmyths]

Now if everyone looks, in 2003 Bush moved the tax cuts from 2006. What happened to total revenue.

Also notice, what happened AFTER Clinton cut the tax in 1997?

Show us the loss, show it to us please-)

Bush had already cut taxes in 2001, 2001 and 2003. Federal income tax revenues fell all those years.

You skip past those pesky facts to point to rising revenues starting in 2004 but you falsely attribute that rise to the tax cuts (which already saw 3 years of decline) when it was actually the real estate bubble, which began expanding uncontrollably around 2004, which inflated the economy and increased tax revenues.

And why did I? Explain to the people!

Well no, let me---------->

I think Bush sucked as much as Obama, or almost as much, but let me tell everyone what ACTUALLY happened.............

Bush cut taxes on a phase in that Democrats agreed to. The reason both partys' agreed was the recession Bush was handed to him at the end of the Clinton Presidency. (did we forget about that?) And I am sure the phase in would have worked as both of the political partys' agreed to, until 9-11. When that happened, the economy TANKED, and those alive who actually were old enough to understand, know why.

Anyway, the tax cuts were to be phased in and take full effect in 2006 I believe, but the economy was so bad after 9-11, something had to be done.

In 2003, Bush decided to lobby congress to put in the tax cuts that were left together, to shock the economy back to normalcy. Look at charts that show what happened AFTER the 2003 "instant move up," and you will see how revenues to the federal government went wild.

Fauns assertion is just cherry picking. He doesn't say it, but implies that the tax cuts that were promised caused the economy to tank, and NOTHING could be further from the truth. 9-11 did it, and that caused the promised tax cuts into being invoked in 2003, instead of being played out until 2006. The growth was astounding, and the treasury grew massively, although our leaders like nothing more than to spend more money, when money comes in unexpectedly.

Bush was Obama lite, Obama was Bush heavy. Neither one of them deserve our time of day, not that everything both of them did was 100% wrong, but rather, to much of what they both did was not correct!

Dayam, you just can’t stop lying, can ya, lying con?

The 2001 recession began in March, 2001 and wasn’t determined until November, 2001. Meanwhile, Bush campaigned on cutting taxes a year earlier. And with his first tax cut passing in June, 2001, how the **** were the parties agreeing to anything regarding a recession that wouldn’t be declared for another 5 months???

Scratch a conservative and find a liar.

The more you post, the deeper your hole is getting.

And of course YOU are so dumb you think an oil tanker can turn around on a dime!
DIMWIT!!! The economy is LIKE an OIL TANKER... IT takes months if not years to decline and almost as long to recover!
So this crap about a "recession starting on 3/1/01 is just that! It started declining in 2000!

And this CRAP about Obama getting the credit for economic turnaround!
HE HAD NOTHING TO with it but slow it down with dumb economic statements like these:

View attachment 171869

I call BS !

Out of the worst hurricanes to hit the US , only Katrina was during the bush years .

Top Ten Hurricanes to Hit The United States

Please pay attention!
READ THE LINK!!!
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005.
It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages.
It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.

Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage* $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!

1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000

Costliest U.S. Weather Disasters | Weather Underground

And more importantly while these were going on, we had recovery from 9/11, dot.com bust and recession... all during those years.
AND finally idiots like you don't seem to understand the magnitude of this event!
READ and comprehend for once!

The 9/18/2008 Economic Terrorist Attack:
On Thursday (Sept 18), at 11 in the morning the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous draw-down of money market accounts in the U.S.,
to the tune of $550 billion was being drawn out in the matter of an hour or two.
The Treasury opened up its window to help and pumped a $105 billion in the system and quickly realized that they could not stem the tide.
We were having an electronic run on the banks.
They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account so there wouldn't be further panic out there. If they had not done that, their estimation was that by 2pm that afternoon, $5.5 trillion would have been drawn out of the money market system of the U.S., would have collapsed the entire economy of the U.S., and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed. It would have been the end of our economic system and our political system as we know it...
How the World Almost Came to an End on September 18, 2008 | Seeking Alpha

On September 16, the Reserve Primary Fund, a large money market mutual fund, lowered its share price below $1 because of exposure to Lehman debt securities. This resulted in demands from investors to return their funds as the financial crisis mounted.[21] By the morning of September 18, money market sell orders from institutional investors totalled $0.5 trillion, out of a total market capitalization of $4 trillion, but a $105 billion liquidity injection from the Federal Reserve averted an immediate collapse.[22][23] On September 19 the U.S. Treasury offered temporary insurance (akin to Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insurance of bank accounts) to money market funds.[24] Toward the end of the week, short selling of financial stocks was suspended by the Financial Services Authority in the United Kingdom and by the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States.[25] Similar measures were taken by authorities in other countries.[26] Some restoration of market confidence occurred with the publicity surrounding efforts of the Treasury and the Securities Exchange Commission[27][28]

US Troubled Asset Relief Program[edit]
Main articles: Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 and Troubled Assets Relief Program
On September 19, 2008 a plan intended to ameliorate the difficulties caused by the subprime mortgage crisis was proposed by the Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson. He proposed a Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), later incorporated into the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, which would permit the United States government to purchase illiquid assets, informally termed toxic assets, from financial institutions.[29][30] The value of the securities is extremely difficult to determine.[31]
Global financial crisis in September 2008 - Wikipedia

AND TARP was paid back under Obama who squandered it and the $80 billion in profits adding to the deficit of $9 Trillion!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Dude, or Dudette------------> you are again trying to obfuscate this particular part of the issue.

JUST ANSWER----------> Did we not enter a recession at the end of the Clinton Presidency? YES or NO?

2. Were NOT the Bush tax cuts supposed to be phased in through 2006? YES or NO?

3. Were they NOT pushed up in 2003 to immediate? YES or NO?

4. And did not revenue explode to the Federal Government afterwards in 2004? YES or NO!

Quit beating around the Bush, lol. (pun intended) Bush sucked it out, but even he could not screw up the massive expansion of revenue to the federal government by using a tax break.

Tell ALL of these nice people what was the revenue stream between 2003, and 2004-) Cmon, tell them, lololol. You phony-baloney!

I already did, ya lying con. The housing bubble. It was already growing rapidly but began exploding at some point in 2003, going full retard in 2004.

So, you are suggesting that the increase in revenue was due to the housing bubble? OK, maybe we can agree on that. We could also say that.........the Clinton expansion was due to the dot com bubble, couldn't we? We could also say that.........the Reagan expansion was due to pent up demand, and now lower interest rates too, couldn't we?

Now I bet you think I am trying to set you up on this one, but that is NOT true. All of the questions in my last sentence could easily be construed as accurate, and probably closer to the truth then many on either side want to admit.

But here is the deal-----------> WHY, yes WHY if these questions are accurate, are they even CLOSE to accurate?

ANSWER-------->Because all invested money that is not stupid, takes the path of least resistance. PLEASE POGO, read that previous sentence again!

Regardless of if Republican or Democrat, our economy is touched by what our politicians think, then enact. If lobbyists, or government officials want you to buy something, they promote it through a tax savings. EXAMPLE----------> If I pay 1000 bucks for rent a month, but if I buy a place it costs 1075 a month........but the government gives me a 75 buck tax break while my property rises in value, I am a damn fool not to buy. Can I have an amen?

You see Pogo, I am not an advocate for tax breaks perse', unless the tax breaks allow fair and equal access to allow YOU to decide what YOU want to buy by fair price, and not a falsely lowered price, because of government mandate on what they THINK you ought to buy, thus giving you a break on the product(s) of their choice that they think are good for you.

This interference by the government, causes bubbles. We seen it with housing. the dot com, and autos after the clunkers program. All done in good theory, but in actual practice, absolutely terrible!

All these failed programs from our BRILLIANT leaders from BOTH political entities; where did the actual money come from? Same place our tax break money came from, from us!

POGO, I do not agree with you on much of anything, do I? And yet, you taking YOUR money and deciding what to do with it, is a far better economic signal to all of us, then letting the government decide what YOU should buy by giving breaks for certain consumables, sending everyone watching a false economic signal.

This is NOT just a Democratic problem, it is BOTH political entities.

So you ask, what has this got to do with tax cuts? Good question!

ANSWER-------------> If we allow you to do what YOU want to do without greasing the skids towards what anyone wants, then you will do what is best for you. The more money we allow you to make those decisions with, the stronger the signal to everyone. It shows in the numbers!

This means that if YOU want more beef, I need to invest in MORE BEEF! If you want more chicken, then chicken farms it is.

But, if I allow the government to subsidize chicken when you really want beef, I have done you no service.

Why?

Because if I invest in beef, the price will fall, meaning YOU get what you want by me reading the real and accurate signals.

Why?

Because by all of us investing, the amount of beef will rise, meaning at some point, the supply will exceed the demand forcing the price down, meaning you eventually get what you want. Price supports by government, skew this relationship, and you get an over abundance of chicken!

So by allowing you to keep as much of your money as possible, it helps quickly inform me of what you really want as far as products. That makes me wealthy. You too, if you care to participate!

So what you want for dinner POGO? Chicken? Steak? Are you a vegetarian and want green beans and rice? Use your tax break to buy stuff, and I promise that not only will you have it, the price will come down as we invest in it, to make a profit-) Follow our lead, and like it or not, you will be more wealthy too.

a) none of that touches on whether or not tax cuts increase tax revenue. They don’t.

b) I’m not Pogo. You’re so far gone, you don’t even know who you’re talking to, even though you’re clicking reply to my posts — which should have offered you a huge clue.

Dude, or Dudette------------> you are again trying to obfuscate this particular part of the issue.

JUST ANSWER----------> Did we not enter a recession at the end of the Clinton Presidency? YES or NO?

2. Were NOT the Bush tax cuts supposed to be phased in through 2006? YES or NO?

3. Were they NOT pushed up in 2003 to immediate? YES or NO?

4. And did not revenue explode to the Federal Government afterwards in 2004? YES or NO!

Quit beating around the Bush, lol. (pun intended) Bush sucked it out, but even he could not screw up the massive expansion of revenue to the federal government by using a tax break.

Tell ALL of these nice people what was the revenue stream between 2003, and 2004-) Cmon, tell them, lololol. You phony-baloney!

Revenue streams down 2001...down 2002...down2003
GEEZ wonder why...hmmm... 2001.. RECESSION that started under Clinton, dot.com bust, on and yea $9 Trillion in losses between dot.com,recession and something happened 9/11?

View attachment 171870

Health, no offense intended,

but my whole thing is that "the past gives us a blueprint for the future." We can debate on the policies of Reagan, Kennedy, Coolidge, Clinton, and Bush Jr. What we actually have from history is.........what worked........and what did not! The numbers prove this out.

There is no longer a question of if the receipts to the treasury went down or not. It is right there in the historical numbers.

Now the left will always try and put forth the question/notion of what the numbers would be IF the rates were not cut. But you can NOT prove, or disprove a question that has no facts in evidence, now can you! If we tried to explain that it would have been worse, or much worse; we would be no better than Democrats trying to spin our view. Then it would become spin V spin, which one do you like more, yes!

So my whole thing is to insure the Left does not get to LIE! I will accept their supposition on "what might have happened" and debate that with them mano-e-mano, but will NEVER allow them to lie about the factual outcome of the policies that were actually invoked. As long as we all do that, the Left has a huuuuuuuge problem.

Personally, I do not think part of the Leftist posters on here are aware of the actual facts. Some of the other Leftist posters on here are AWARE of the actual facts, but try and rally the troops through obfuscation of the numbers, keeping them unaware on the Democratic plantation through propaganda.

FACTS are the enemy of the left! While probably NOT being popular, I must say that they are "not always wrong," just most of the time, lol! Facts do not belong to a political party, they belong to reality. Facts do not care who created them.......Republican or Democrat............just that they are facts!

When a Leftist comes up with a fact that proves their point, then to argue is to lose credibility. They are NOT always wrong. EXAMPLE--------> The Kennedy tax cuts did great! We should argue that position? To do so, makes us look like fools, yes?!?!?!?!?!

To argue that the Bill Clinton economy sucked it out is also a losing position. But, to correlate WHY it was a good economy, and what caused it, is a WINNING position!

In essence, what I am saying kinda long winded is----------> History teaches all things! Until re-enacting history and what works, the Left hasn't a leg to stand on until it fails. At that time, they have a case. So far, they have no case, no matter how hard they try! At some time in the near, or far future, it may change, who knows. But until that time, continue to refute them with facts of the past. Without past success, we have no blueprint, just theory. That is what they are selling, THEORY! We tried it with Obama, and now we revert with Trump. As long as we do BETTER with reverting, the Left has a deep hole to dig out of, and that is the absolute truth!

Lying doesn’t help you at all. Your own links showed that federal income tax revenues declined in 1982, 1983, 2001, 2002 and 2003. That would not have been the case had tax cuts generated tax revenue.

So let me get this straight, everyone watching?

Reagan enacted the tax cut in 1981, yes......or no?

So, in 1981 the income was-------->285,917 billion, yes or no?

In 1982, the income was------------->297,744 billion, yes or no?

So which is higher? Is it 285, or is it 297, lol.

In 1986, Reagan second phase went in, YES or NO?

Now in 1986, income was--------follow me here in your feeble mind--------->348,959. Yes or no?

In 1987, income to the feds was---------->392,557.

Now I know it is difficult for you Fauny, but which is higher?

-)

And so, in 2003, the Bush tax cuts were moved all forward to take effect, YES or NO!

In 2003 the income to the Fed was.......wait for it-------->793,699 billion. Yes or no!

In 2004, AFTER the cuts, the income to the Fed was------->808,959, yes or no!

Now then, is what came in for 2004 greater than, or less than what came in for 2003?

Your new name is, Fauny-Baloney-)

You lose, because EVERY government chart shows this, lol. Try again Boseaphus.

Here is the chart folks. For Leftists, your hero, Fauny-E-Baloney, just got his Leftist ass handed to him on a silver platter!

Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 - Tax Foundation

lol, you left out 1983, lower revenue than 1982.

 

[imawhosure]

Bush had already cut taxes in 2001, 2001 and 2003. Federal income tax revenues fell all those years.

You skip past those pesky facts to point to rising revenues starting in 2004 but you falsely attribute that rise to the tax cuts (which already saw 3 years of decline) when it was actually the real estate bubble, which began expanding uncontrollably around 2004, which inflated the economy and increased tax revenues.

And why did I? Explain to the people!

Well no, let me---------->

I think Bush sucked as much as Obama, or almost as much, but let me tell everyone what ACTUALLY happened.............

Bush cut taxes on a phase in that Democrats agreed to. The reason both partys' agreed was the recession Bush was handed to him at the end of the Clinton Presidency. (did we forget about that?) And I am sure the phase in would have worked as both of the political partys' agreed to, until 9-11. When that happened, the economy TANKED, and those alive who actually were old enough to understand, know why.

Anyway, the tax cuts were to be phased in and take full effect in 2006 I believe, but the economy was so bad after 9-11, something had to be done.

In 2003, Bush decided to lobby congress to put in the tax cuts that were left together, to shock the economy back to normalcy. Look at charts that show what happened AFTER the 2003 "instant move up," and you will see how revenues to the federal government went wild.

Fauns assertion is just cherry picking. He doesn't say it, but implies that the tax cuts that were promised caused the economy to tank, and NOTHING could be further from the truth. 9-11 did it, and that caused the promised tax cuts into being invoked in 2003, instead of being played out until 2006. The growth was astounding, and the treasury grew massively, although our leaders like nothing more than to spend more money, when money comes in unexpectedly.

Bush was Obama lite, Obama was Bush heavy. Neither one of them deserve our time of day, not that everything both of them did was 100% wrong, but rather, to much of what they both did was not correct!

Dayam, you just can’t stop lying, can ya, lying con?

The 2001 recession began in March, 2001 and wasn’t determined until November, 2001. Meanwhile, Bush campaigned on cutting taxes a year earlier. And with his first tax cut passing in June, 2001, how the **** were the parties agreeing to anything regarding a recession that wouldn’t be declared for another 5 months???

Scratch a conservative and find a liar.

The more you post, the deeper your hole is getting.

And of course YOU are so dumb you think an oil tanker can turn around on a dime!
DIMWIT!!! The economy is LIKE an OIL TANKER... IT takes months if not years to decline and almost as long to recover!
So this crap about a "recession starting on 3/1/01 is just that! It started declining in 2000!

And this CRAP about Obama getting the credit for economic turnaround!
HE HAD NOTHING TO with it but slow it down with dumb economic statements like these:

View attachment 171869

I call BS !

Out of the worst hurricanes to hit the US , only Katrina was during the bush years .

Top Ten Hurricanes to Hit The United States

Please pay attention!
READ THE LINK!!!
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005.
It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages.
It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.

Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage* $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!

1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000

Costliest U.S. Weather Disasters | Weather Underground

And more importantly while these were going on, we had recovery from 9/11, dot.com bust and recession... all during those years.
AND finally idiots like you don't seem to understand the magnitude of this event!
READ and comprehend for once!

The 9/18/2008 Economic Terrorist Attack:
On Thursday (Sept 18), at 11 in the morning the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous draw-down of money market accounts in the U.S.,
to the tune of $550 billion was being drawn out in the matter of an hour or two.
The Treasury opened up its window to help and pumped a $105 billion in the system and quickly realized that they could not stem the tide.
We were having an electronic run on the banks.
They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account so there wouldn't be further panic out there. If they had not done that, their estimation was that by 2pm that afternoon, $5.5 trillion would have been drawn out of the money market system of the U.S., would have collapsed the entire economy of the U.S., and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed. It would have been the end of our economic system and our political system as we know it...
How the World Almost Came to an End on September 18, 2008 | Seeking Alpha

On September 16, the Reserve Primary Fund, a large money market mutual fund, lowered its share price below $1 because of exposure to Lehman debt securities. This resulted in demands from investors to return their funds as the financial crisis mounted.[21] By the morning of September 18, money market sell orders from institutional investors totalled $0.5 trillion, out of a total market capitalization of $4 trillion, but a $105 billion liquidity injection from the Federal Reserve averted an immediate collapse.[22][23] On September 19 the U.S. Treasury offered temporary insurance (akin to Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insurance of bank accounts) to money market funds.[24] Toward the end of the week, short selling of financial stocks was suspended by the Financial Services Authority in the United Kingdom and by the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States.[25] Similar measures were taken by authorities in other countries.[26] Some restoration of market confidence occurred with the publicity surrounding efforts of the Treasury and the Securities Exchange Commission[27][28]

US Troubled Asset Relief Program[edit]
Main articles: Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 and Troubled Assets Relief Program
On September 19, 2008 a plan intended to ameliorate the difficulties caused by the subprime mortgage crisis was proposed by the Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson. He proposed a Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), later incorporated into the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, which would permit the United States government to purchase illiquid assets, informally termed toxic assets, from financial institutions.[29][30] The value of the securities is extremely difficult to determine.[31]
Global financial crisis in September 2008 - Wikipedia

AND TARP was paid back under Obama who squandered it and the $80 billion in profits adding to the deficit of $9 Trillion!

I understand, really I do, and I am not saying that to placate you.

But we can NOT do anything about Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr, or Reagan. All we can do is draw from their historical performance, move it forward with numbers, and extrapolate an outcome for current policies.

In essence, we do NOT forget what the past taught us, but wisely use that information to point our ship of state in the correct direction; especially, fiscally.

Now, that does NOT mean we can NOT litigate what might have been legal, or illegal, and bring the culprits forward. It may not be as one sided as you think, but it would surely point a nasty finger at Washington, now wouldn't it, lol.

Still, if our position is true, then informing/educating people on numbers is the best way to break the cycle of stupidity. Run the numbers! Is your position correct without using the old, "yeah because" that the left uses? If so, then you have a winner!!!!!!!!!!!!

But sometimes; seldom I admit...........that the left comes up with numbers that throws a wrench in the works, we MUST admit it is so. To defend stupidity does not a debate point make. Consistency is paramount, to secure your validity.

My position is simple---------->what hill are you willing to die on, and which point is worth dying for!

I refuse to relitigate the past except for their numbers unless we must defend, or use those numbers to crush the lefts propaganda. Bush is gone. So is Clinton. So is Obama. Out of the 3, Bill Clinton was by far the best fiscally. Is that a lie?

So to answer the lefts position that he was, we have to answer WHY! To not do that makes us look down right dumb, and that is not meant to be offensive. Either we make the case why his administration worked, or we let them win the debate by insisting that HE had it under control, and we screwed the pooch.

Think of it all this way, and I will let you go----------------> what was the last administration to be successful fiscally? As long as we defend Bush Jr, we can NOT make the case!

Always remember that good/great Presidents do not morph out of one party, and sometimes good/great Presidents are FORCED into the positions that make them appear to have made terrific decisions for the good of the country. Oh yes, they take the credit, from BOTH sides of the aisle, and we we must all face that, but was it really THEIR IDEA!

With that, I will let you go. Keep fighting the good fight, win or lose-) As long as you tell the truth, your integrity will be intact, and your win % will be much higher than your loss. As long as all of us on the right remember............sometimes by numbers.........the left is correct and we admit it is so.............then our integrity stays intact. I know, I know, you want to know ho many times that may be. Well, to be honest, if their numbers go over 50% accurate, all of us will switch sides, now won't we!

So far, it isn't even close, so feel comfortable in your position-)

 

[Faun]

Dude, or Dudette------------> you are again trying to obfuscate this particular part of the issue.

JUST ANSWER----------> Did we not enter a recession at the end of the Clinton Presidency? YES or NO?

2. Were NOT the Bush tax cuts supposed to be phased in through 2006? YES or NO?

3. Were they NOT pushed up in 2003 to immediate? YES or NO?

4. And did not revenue explode to the Federal Government afterwards in 2004? YES or NO!

Quit beating around the Bush, lol. (pun intended) Bush sucked it out, but even he could not screw up the massive expansion of revenue to the federal government by using a tax break.

Tell ALL of these nice people what was the revenue stream between 2003, and 2004-) Cmon, tell them, lololol. You phony-baloney!

I already did, ya lying con. The housing bubble. It was already growing rapidly but began exploding at some point in 2003, going full retard in 2004.

So, you are suggesting that the increase in revenue was due to the housing bubble? OK, maybe we can agree on that. We could also say that.........the Clinton expansion was due to the dot com bubble, couldn't we? We could also say that.........the Reagan expansion was due to pent up demand, and now lower interest rates too, couldn't we?

Now I bet you think I am trying to set you up on this one, but that is NOT true. All of the questions in my last sentence could easily be construed as accurate, and probably closer to the truth then many on either side want to admit.

But here is the deal-----------> WHY, yes WHY if these questions are accurate, are they even CLOSE to accurate?

ANSWER-------->Because all invested money that is not stupid, takes the path of least resistance. PLEASE POGO, read that previous sentence again!

Regardless of if Republican or Democrat, our economy is touched by what our politicians think, then enact. If lobbyists, or government officials want you to buy something, they promote it through a tax savings. EXAMPLE----------> If I pay 1000 bucks for rent a month, but if I buy a place it costs 1075 a month........but the government gives me a 75 buck tax break while my property rises in value, I am a damn fool not to buy. Can I have an amen?

You see Pogo, I am not an advocate for tax breaks perse', unless the tax breaks allow fair and equal access to allow YOU to decide what YOU want to buy by fair price, and not a falsely lowered price, because of government mandate on what they THINK you ought to buy, thus giving you a break on the product(s) of their choice that they think are good for you.

This interference by the government, causes bubbles. We seen it with housing. the dot com, and autos after the clunkers program. All done in good theory, but in actual practice, absolutely terrible!

All these failed programs from our BRILLIANT leaders from BOTH political entities; where did the actual money come from? Same place our tax break money came from, from us!

POGO, I do not agree with you on much of anything, do I? And yet, you taking YOUR money and deciding what to do with it, is a far better economic signal to all of us, then letting the government decide what YOU should buy by giving breaks for certain consumables, sending everyone watching a false economic signal.

This is NOT just a Democratic problem, it is BOTH political entities.

So you ask, what has this got to do with tax cuts? Good question!

ANSWER-------------> If we allow you to do what YOU want to do without greasing the skids towards what anyone wants, then you will do what is best for you. The more money we allow you to make those decisions with, the stronger the signal to everyone. It shows in the numbers!

This means that if YOU want more beef, I need to invest in MORE BEEF! If you want more chicken, then chicken farms it is.

But, if I allow the government to subsidize chicken when you really want beef, I have done you no service.

Why?

Because if I invest in beef, the price will fall, meaning YOU get what you want by me reading the real and accurate signals.

Why?

Because by all of us investing, the amount of beef will rise, meaning at some point, the supply will exceed the demand forcing the price down, meaning you eventually get what you want. Price supports by government, skew this relationship, and you get an over abundance of chicken!

So by allowing you to keep as much of your money as possible, it helps quickly inform me of what you really want as far as products. That makes me wealthy. You too, if you care to participate!

So what you want for dinner POGO? Chicken? Steak? Are you a vegetarian and want green beans and rice? Use your tax break to buy stuff, and I promise that not only will you have it, the price will come down as we invest in it, to make a profit-) Follow our lead, and like it or not, you will be more wealthy too.

a) none of that touches on whether or not tax cuts increase tax revenue. They don’t.

b) I’m not Pogo. You’re so far gone, you don’t even know who you’re talking to, even though you’re clicking reply to my posts — which should have offered you a huge clue.

Dude, or Dudette------------> you are again trying to obfuscate this particular part of the issue.

JUST ANSWER----------> Did we not enter a recession at the end of the Clinton Presidency? YES or NO?

2. Were NOT the Bush tax cuts supposed to be phased in through 2006? YES or NO?

3. Were they NOT pushed up in 2003 to immediate? YES or NO?

4. And did not revenue explode to the Federal Government afterwards in 2004? YES or NO!

Quit beating around the Bush, lol. (pun intended) Bush sucked it out, but even he could not screw up the massive expansion of revenue to the federal government by using a tax break.

Tell ALL of these nice people what was the revenue stream between 2003, and 2004-) Cmon, tell them, lololol. You phony-baloney!

Revenue streams down 2001...down 2002...down2003
GEEZ wonder why...hmmm... 2001.. RECESSION that started under Clinton, dot.com bust, on and yea $9 Trillion in losses between dot.com,recession and something happened 9/11?

View attachment 171870

Health, no offense intended,

but my whole thing is that "the past gives us a blueprint for the future." We can debate on the policies of Reagan, Kennedy, Coolidge, Clinton, and Bush Jr. What we actually have from history is.........what worked........and what did not! The numbers prove this out.

There is no longer a question of if the receipts to the treasury went down or not. It is right there in the historical numbers.

Now the left will always try and put forth the question/notion of what the numbers would be IF the rates were not cut. But you can NOT prove, or disprove a question that has no facts in evidence, now can you! If we tried to explain that it would have been worse, or much worse; we would be no better than Democrats trying to spin our view. Then it would become spin V spin, which one do you like more, yes!

So my whole thing is to insure the Left does not get to LIE! I will accept their supposition on "what might have happened" and debate that with them mano-e-mano, but will NEVER allow them to lie about the factual outcome of the policies that were actually invoked. As long as we all do that, the Left has a huuuuuuuge problem.

Personally, I do not think part of the Leftist posters on here are aware of the actual facts. Some of the other Leftist posters on here are AWARE of the actual facts, but try and rally the troops through obfuscation of the numbers, keeping them unaware on the Democratic plantation through propaganda.

FACTS are the enemy of the left! While probably NOT being popular, I must say that they are "not always wrong," just most of the time, lol! Facts do not belong to a political party, they belong to reality. Facts do not care who created them.......Republican or Democrat............just that they are facts!

When a Leftist comes up with a fact that proves their point, then to argue is to lose credibility. They are NOT always wrong. EXAMPLE--------> The Kennedy tax cuts did great! We should argue that position? To do so, makes us look like fools, yes?!?!?!?!?!

To argue that the Bill Clinton economy sucked it out is also a losing position. But, to correlate WHY it was a good economy, and what caused it, is a WINNING position!

In essence, what I am saying kinda long winded is----------> History teaches all things! Until re-enacting history and what works, the Left hasn't a leg to stand on until it fails. At that time, they have a case. So far, they have no case, no matter how hard they try! At some time in the near, or far future, it may change, who knows. But until that time, continue to refute them with facts of the past. Without past success, we have no blueprint, just theory. That is what they are selling, THEORY! We tried it with Obama, and now we revert with Trump. As long as we do BETTER with reverting, the Left has a deep hole to dig out of, and that is the absolute truth!

Lying doesn’t help you at all. Your own links showed that federal income tax revenues declined in 1982, 1983, 2001, 2002 and 2003. That would not have been the case had tax cuts generated tax revenue.

So let me get this straight, everyone watching?

Reagan enacted the tax cut in 1981, yes......or no?

So, in 1981 the income was-------->285,917 billion, yes or no?

In 1982, the income was------------->297,744 billion, yes or no?

So which is higher? Is it 285, or is it 297, lol.

In 1986, Reagan second phase went in, YES or NO?

Now in 1986, income was--------follow me here in your feeble mind--------->348,959. Yes or no?

In 1987, income to the feds was---------->392,557.

Now I know it is difficult for you Fauny, but which is higher?

-)

And so, in 2003, the Bush tax cuts were moved all forward to take effect, YES or NO!

In 2003 the income to the Fed was.......wait for it-------->793,699 billion. Yes or no!

In 2004, AFTER the cuts, the income to the Fed was------->808,959, yes or no!

Now then, is what came in for 2004 greater than, or less than what came in for 2003?

Your new name is, Fauny-Baloney-)

You lose, because EVERY government chart shows this, lol. Try again Boseaphus.

Here is the chart folks. For Leftists, your hero, Fauny-E-Baloney, just got his Leftist ass handed to him on a silver platter!

Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 - Tax Foundation

LOLOLOL

Moron....

You only looked at "Individual Income Taxes." We're talking about federal income tax revenues and you omit corporate income tax revenues..

At least you finally figured out not to include state and local tax revenues.

And at least you finally figured out not to include other taxes besides income taxes.

And at least you finally figured out I'm not Pogo.

Sucks to be you to have your ass kicked by someone you think of as feeble minded.

 

[imawhosure]

Tell ALL of these nice people what was the revenue stream between 2003, and 2004-) Cmon, tell them, lololol. You phony-baloney!

I already did, ya lying con. The housing bubble. It was already growing rapidly but began exploding at some point in 2003, going full retard in 2004.

So, you are suggesting that the increase in revenue was due to the housing bubble? OK, maybe we can agree on that. We could also say that.........the Clinton expansion was due to the dot com bubble, couldn't we? We could also say that.........the Reagan expansion was due to pent up demand, and now lower interest rates too, couldn't we?

Now I bet you think I am trying to set you up on this one, but that is NOT true. All of the questions in my last sentence could easily be construed as accurate, and probably closer to the truth then many on either side want to admit.

But here is the deal-----------> WHY, yes WHY if these questions are accurate, are they even CLOSE to accurate?

ANSWER-------->Because all invested money that is not stupid, takes the path of least resistance. PLEASE POGO, read that previous sentence again!

Regardless of if Republican or Democrat, our economy is touched by what our politicians think, then enact. If lobbyists, or government officials want you to buy something, they promote it through a tax savings. EXAMPLE----------> If I pay 1000 bucks for rent a month, but if I buy a place it costs 1075 a month........but the government gives me a 75 buck tax break while my property rises in value, I am a damn fool not to buy. Can I have an amen?

You see Pogo, I am not an advocate for tax breaks perse', unless the tax breaks allow fair and equal access to allow YOU to decide what YOU want to buy by fair price, and not a falsely lowered price, because of government mandate on what they THINK you ought to buy, thus giving you a break on the product(s) of their choice that they think are good for you.

This interference by the government, causes bubbles. We seen it with housing. the dot com, and autos after the clunkers program. All done in good theory, but in actual practice, absolutely terrible!

All these failed programs from our BRILLIANT leaders from BOTH political entities; where did the actual money come from? Same place our tax break money came from, from us!

POGO, I do not agree with you on much of anything, do I? And yet, you taking YOUR money and deciding what to do with it, is a far better economic signal to all of us, then letting the government decide what YOU should buy by giving breaks for certain consumables, sending everyone watching a false economic signal.

This is NOT just a Democratic problem, it is BOTH political entities.

So you ask, what has this got to do with tax cuts? Good question!

ANSWER-------------> If we allow you to do what YOU want to do without greasing the skids towards what anyone wants, then you will do what is best for you. The more money we allow you to make those decisions with, the stronger the signal to everyone. It shows in the numbers!

This means that if YOU want more beef, I need to invest in MORE BEEF! If you want more chicken, then chicken farms it is.

But, if I allow the government to subsidize chicken when you really want beef, I have done you no service.

Why?

Because if I invest in beef, the price will fall, meaning YOU get what you want by me reading the real and accurate signals.

Why?

Because by all of us investing, the amount of beef will rise, meaning at some point, the supply will exceed the demand forcing the price down, meaning you eventually get what you want. Price supports by government, skew this relationship, and you get an over abundance of chicken!

So by allowing you to keep as much of your money as possible, it helps quickly inform me of what you really want as far as products. That makes me wealthy. You too, if you care to participate!

So what you want for dinner POGO? Chicken? Steak? Are you a vegetarian and want green beans and rice? Use your tax break to buy stuff, and I promise that not only will you have it, the price will come down as we invest in it, to make a profit-) Follow our lead, and like it or not, you will be more wealthy too.

a) none of that touches on whether or not tax cuts increase tax revenue. They don’t.

b) I’m not Pogo. You’re so far gone, you don’t even know who you’re talking to, even though you’re clicking reply to my posts — which should have offered you a huge clue.

Tell ALL of these nice people what was the revenue stream between 2003, and 2004-) Cmon, tell them, lololol. You phony-baloney!

Revenue streams down 2001...down 2002...down2003
GEEZ wonder why...hmmm... 2001.. RECESSION that started under Clinton, dot.com bust, on and yea $9 Trillion in losses between dot.com,recession and something happened 9/11?

View attachment 171870

Health, no offense intended,

but my whole thing is that "the past gives us a blueprint for the future." We can debate on the policies of Reagan, Kennedy, Coolidge, Clinton, and Bush Jr. What we actually have from history is.........what worked........and what did not! The numbers prove this out.

There is no longer a question of if the receipts to the treasury went down or not. It is right there in the historical numbers.

Now the left will always try and put forth the question/notion of what the numbers would be IF the rates were not cut. But you can NOT prove, or disprove a question that has no facts in evidence, now can you! If we tried to explain that it would have been worse, or much worse; we would be no better than Democrats trying to spin our view. Then it would become spin V spin, which one do you like more, yes!

So my whole thing is to insure the Left does not get to LIE! I will accept their supposition on "what might have happened" and debate that with them mano-e-mano, but will NEVER allow them to lie about the factual outcome of the policies that were actually invoked. As long as we all do that, the Left has a huuuuuuuge problem.

Personally, I do not think part of the Leftist posters on here are aware of the actual facts. Some of the other Leftist posters on here are AWARE of the actual facts, but try and rally the troops through obfuscation of the numbers, keeping them unaware on the Democratic plantation through propaganda.

FACTS are the enemy of the left! While probably NOT being popular, I must say that they are "not always wrong," just most of the time, lol! Facts do not belong to a political party, they belong to reality. Facts do not care who created them.......Republican or Democrat............just that they are facts!

When a Leftist comes up with a fact that proves their point, then to argue is to lose credibility. They are NOT always wrong. EXAMPLE--------> The Kennedy tax cuts did great! We should argue that position? To do so, makes us look like fools, yes?!?!?!?!?!

To argue that the Bill Clinton economy sucked it out is also a losing position. But, to correlate WHY it was a good economy, and what caused it, is a WINNING position!

In essence, what I am saying kinda long winded is----------> History teaches all things! Until re-enacting history and what works, the Left hasn't a leg to stand on until it fails. At that time, they have a case. So far, they have no case, no matter how hard they try! At some time in the near, or far future, it may change, who knows. But until that time, continue to refute them with facts of the past. Without past success, we have no blueprint, just theory. That is what they are selling, THEORY! We tried it with Obama, and now we revert with Trump. As long as we do BETTER with reverting, the Left has a deep hole to dig out of, and that is the absolute truth!

Lying doesn’t help you at all. Your own links showed that federal income tax revenues declined in 1982, 1983, 2001, 2002 and 2003. That would not have been the case had tax cuts generated tax revenue.

So let me get this straight, everyone watching?

Reagan enacted the tax cut in 1981, yes......or no?

So, in 1981 the income was-------->285,917 billion, yes or no?

In 1982, the income was------------->297,744 billion, yes or no?

So which is higher? Is it 285, or is it 297, lol.

In 1986, Reagan second phase went in, YES or NO?

Now in 1986, income was--------follow me here in your feeble mind--------->348,959. Yes or no?

In 1987, income to the feds was---------->392,557.

Now I know it is difficult for you Fauny, but which is higher?

-)

And so, in 2003, the Bush tax cuts were moved all forward to take effect, YES or NO!

In 2003 the income to the Fed was.......wait for it-------->793,699 billion. Yes or no!

In 2004, AFTER the cuts, the income to the Fed was------->808,959, yes or no!

Now then, is what came in for 2004 greater than, or less than what came in for 2003?

Your new name is, Fauny-Baloney-)

You lose, because EVERY government chart shows this, lol. Try again Boseaphus.

Here is the chart folks. For Leftists, your hero, Fauny-E-Baloney, just got his Leftist ass handed to him on a silver platter!

Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 - Tax Foundation

lol, you left out 1983, lower revenue than 1982.

And exactly WHEN were they 1st invoked? Head with antlers with nothing between them, the money to the FED went UP!

And after they were fully put in by 1986? Economic explosion!

Oh, you forgot to mention that, didn't you!

You also forget to mention that the vote tells us what Americans think! How many states did Reagan win for re-election? Why 49, lol.

Which one did he lose?

Why his Democratic opponents state, by the tidy sum of 3000 votes, lol.

You got NOTHING but a liberal narrative, and you have to lie to even make that work-)

 

[imawhosure]

Tell ALL of these nice people what was the revenue stream between 2003, and 2004-) Cmon, tell them, lololol. You phony-baloney!

I already did, ya lying con. The housing bubble. It was already growing rapidly but began exploding at some point in 2003, going full retard in 2004.

So, you are suggesting that the increase in revenue was due to the housing bubble? OK, maybe we can agree on that. We could also say that.........the Clinton expansion was due to the dot com bubble, couldn't we? We could also say that.........the Reagan expansion was due to pent up demand, and now lower interest rates too, couldn't we?

Now I bet you think I am trying to set you up on this one, but that is NOT true. All of the questions in my last sentence could easily be construed as accurate, and probably closer to the truth then many on either side want to admit.

But here is the deal-----------> WHY, yes WHY if these questions are accurate, are they even CLOSE to accurate?

ANSWER-------->Because all invested money that is not stupid, takes the path of least resistance. PLEASE POGO, read that previous sentence again!

Regardless of if Republican or Democrat, our economy is touched by what our politicians think, then enact. If lobbyists, or government officials want you to buy something, they promote it through a tax savings. EXAMPLE----------> If I pay 1000 bucks for rent a month, but if I buy a place it costs 1075 a month........but the government gives me a 75 buck tax break while my property rises in value, I am a damn fool not to buy. Can I have an amen?

You see Pogo, I am not an advocate for tax breaks perse', unless the tax breaks allow fair and equal access to allow YOU to decide what YOU want to buy by fair price, and not a falsely lowered price, because of government mandate on what they THINK you ought to buy, thus giving you a break on the product(s) of their choice that they think are good for you.

This interference by the government, causes bubbles. We seen it with housing. the dot com, and autos after the clunkers program. All done in good theory, but in actual practice, absolutely terrible!

All these failed programs from our BRILLIANT leaders from BOTH political entities; where did the actual money come from? Same place our tax break money came from, from us!

POGO, I do not agree with you on much of anything, do I? And yet, you taking YOUR money and deciding what to do with it, is a far better economic signal to all of us, then letting the government decide what YOU should buy by giving breaks for certain consumables, sending everyone watching a false economic signal.

This is NOT just a Democratic problem, it is BOTH political entities.

So you ask, what has this got to do with tax cuts? Good question!

ANSWER-------------> If we allow you to do what YOU want to do without greasing the skids towards what anyone wants, then you will do what is best for you. The more money we allow you to make those decisions with, the stronger the signal to everyone. It shows in the numbers!

This means that if YOU want more beef, I need to invest in MORE BEEF! If you want more chicken, then chicken farms it is.

But, if I allow the government to subsidize chicken when you really want beef, I have done you no service.

Why?

Because if I invest in beef, the price will fall, meaning YOU get what you want by me reading the real and accurate signals.

Why?

Because by all of us investing, the amount of beef will rise, meaning at some point, the supply will exceed the demand forcing the price down, meaning you eventually get what you want. Price supports by government, skew this relationship, and you get an over abundance of chicken!

So by allowing you to keep as much of your money as possible, it helps quickly inform me of what you really want as far as products. That makes me wealthy. You too, if you care to participate!

So what you want for dinner POGO? Chicken? Steak? Are you a vegetarian and want green beans and rice? Use your tax break to buy stuff, and I promise that not only will you have it, the price will come down as we invest in it, to make a profit-) Follow our lead, and like it or not, you will be more wealthy too.

a) none of that touches on whether or not tax cuts increase tax revenue. They don’t.

b) I’m not Pogo. You’re so far gone, you don’t even know who you’re talking to, even though you’re clicking reply to my posts — which should have offered you a huge clue.

Tell ALL of these nice people what was the revenue stream between 2003, and 2004-) Cmon, tell them, lololol. You phony-baloney!

Revenue streams down 2001...down 2002...down2003
GEEZ wonder why...hmmm... 2001.. RECESSION that started under Clinton, dot.com bust, on and yea $9 Trillion in losses between dot.com,recession and something happened 9/11?

View attachment 171870

Health, no offense intended,

but my whole thing is that "the past gives us a blueprint for the future." We can debate on the policies of Reagan, Kennedy, Coolidge, Clinton, and Bush Jr. What we actually have from history is.........what worked........and what did not! The numbers prove this out.

There is no longer a question of if the receipts to the treasury went down or not. It is right there in the historical numbers.

Now the left will always try and put forth the question/notion of what the numbers would be IF the rates were not cut. But you can NOT prove, or disprove a question that has no facts in evidence, now can you! If we tried to explain that it would have been worse, or much worse; we would be no better than Democrats trying to spin our view. Then it would become spin V spin, which one do you like more, yes!

So my whole thing is to insure the Left does not get to LIE! I will accept their supposition on "what might have happened" and debate that with them mano-e-mano, but will NEVER allow them to lie about the factual outcome of the policies that were actually invoked. As long as we all do that, the Left has a huuuuuuuge problem.

Personally, I do not think part of the Leftist posters on here are aware of the actual facts. Some of the other Leftist posters on here are AWARE of the actual facts, but try and rally the troops through obfuscation of the numbers, keeping them unaware on the Democratic plantation through propaganda.

FACTS are the enemy of the left! While probably NOT being popular, I must say that they are "not always wrong," just most of the time, lol! Facts do not belong to a political party, they belong to reality. Facts do not care who created them.......Republican or Democrat............just that they are facts!

When a Leftist comes up with a fact that proves their point, then to argue is to lose credibility. They are NOT always wrong. EXAMPLE--------> The Kennedy tax cuts did great! We should argue that position? To do so, makes us look like fools, yes?!?!?!?!?!

To argue that the Bill Clinton economy sucked it out is also a losing position. But, to correlate WHY it was a good economy, and what caused it, is a WINNING position!

In essence, what I am saying kinda long winded is----------> History teaches all things! Until re-enacting history and what works, the Left hasn't a leg to stand on until it fails. At that time, they have a case. So far, they have no case, no matter how hard they try! At some time in the near, or far future, it may change, who knows. But until that time, continue to refute them with facts of the past. Without past success, we have no blueprint, just theory. That is what they are selling, THEORY! We tried it with Obama, and now we revert with Trump. As long as we do BETTER with reverting, the Left has a deep hole to dig out of, and that is the absolute truth!

Lying doesn’t help you at all. Your own links showed that federal income tax revenues declined in 1982, 1983, 2001, 2002 and 2003. That would not have been the case had tax cuts generated tax revenue.

So let me get this straight, everyone watching?

Reagan enacted the tax cut in 1981, yes......or no?

So, in 1981 the income was-------->285,917 billion, yes or no?

In 1982, the income was------------->297,744 billion, yes or no?

So which is higher? Is it 285, or is it 297, lol.

In 1986, Reagan second phase went in, YES or NO?

Now in 1986, income was--------follow me here in your feeble mind--------->348,959. Yes or no?

In 1987, income to the feds was---------->392,557.

Now I know it is difficult for you Fauny, but which is higher?

-)

And so, in 2003, the Bush tax cuts were moved all forward to take effect, YES or NO!

In 2003 the income to the Fed was.......wait for it-------->793,699 billion. Yes or no!

In 2004, AFTER the cuts, the income to the Fed was------->808,959, yes or no!

Now then, is what came in for 2004 greater than, or less than what came in for 2003?

Your new name is, Fauny-Baloney-)

You lose, because EVERY government chart shows this, lol. Try again Boseaphus.

Here is the chart folks. For Leftists, your hero, Fauny-E-Baloney, just got his Leftist ass handed to him on a silver platter!

Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 - Tax Foundation

LOLOLOL

Moron....

You only looked at "Individual Income Taxes." We're talking about federal income tax revenues and you omit corporate income tax revenues..

At least you finally figured out not to include state and local tax revenues.

And at least you finally figured out not to include other taxes besides income taxes.

And at least you finally figured out I'm not Pogo.

Sucks to be you to have your ass kicked by someone you think of as feeble minded.

You lost as all the charts show. POGO, Head with antlers with nothing between them, Sciencesucks, SnakyJakey, all the same. You got HOSED, you lose, now go away and make some peanut butter sandwiches in your parents basement, you wet behind the ears little Antifah Leftist-)