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

[danielpalos]

inducing boom and bust cycles and bailing out the rich, is not very capitalistic.

Then I guess you are suggesting that somehow tax cuts induce boom and bust cycles? Please explain the economic theory behind that bit of economic wisdom. Wouldn't you more insist if thinking, that governmental policy does that. What created the housing crisis? Government interference! It caused a FALSE signal to be sent that more housing was needed because of low interest rates on housing to get more people in them. That was NOT a signal sent by economics, but by government.

Let me ask you something---------> If you and I have 3% down on a house each, why would one of us get it, and the other not if we have everything the same?

REAL ANSWER----------> NEITHER of us should get it, but one of us will IF we were a minority in the past. That is not based on sound economic principles, that is based on government, social, engineering.

Now you have heard all the nonsense I bet, how the richer people caused this by moving up into houses they couldn't afford; and you would partially be correct. But the real question is-----------> what happened to their old house! How did they sell it, and start that vicious cycle of over reach by all? And that is exactly how NEW CONSTRUCTION prices went up so fast........because existing construction could be sold so quickly to anyone with a job making peanuts. Government did this, it DID!

Look back to newspapers and on youtube if you want to teach yourself something. Politicians from BOTH partys were heralding how absolutely wonderful they were because home ownership was so high, all because of their brilliance and policies.

And then, and then, and then, because of those policies, it all came crashing down.......not because of sound economics, but because of their brilliant social engineering, sound economic policies in housing were tossed out the window. You didn't hear either side of the aisle crowing so much anymore, did you. Instead, you seen them pointing the finger at each other, trying to pass the blame......when they BOTH screwed it up.

That is why YOU keeping as much of your money as possible while still funding the necessities of government, is sooooooo important. You can choose much wiser what is best for you than they can, and if you can't afford it by sound economic policies put forth by lending institutions, they won't allow you to buy it, IF you have to borrow money to do it!

we should be spending on infrastructure via macroeconomics, not on microeconomic stuff.

Hey, I am not doubting you, or agreeing with you. I am just showing you what through history has worked. The numbers prove it out. There is no denying it if you check the numbers.

spend and finance works; but, why blame the poor when the rich get their bailouts, as usual.

Wait a second here, lol. Who would you expect to get the most in cuts, those that pay 90% of the taxes, or those that pay 0? It is called a............wait for it.......tax CUT, not a tax gift-)

I expected an Infrastructure plan not a help the rich get richer quicker, plan.

 

[imawhosure]

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 you’re lying by changing topics.

Figures.

We were talking about cutting federal income taxes and here you are, shifting to all other taxes as well. Even worse, you’re now even including state and local tax revenue, which is s reflection on state and local tax rates/codes; not on Reagan’s tax cuts.

Happens every time... scratch a conservative— find a liar.

No, you can choose a chart that includes state and local. I chose federal total revenue in billions. Check it out!

All Federal tax cuts have NEVER caused revenue to drop, up to and including the Coolidge tax cuts. So when you insist it causes us to lose revenue, (not you, but Dani) my only response is------->show us where.

And also, you can NOT gauge a tax cut by measuring one aspect of it. You have to take the whole package in total. EXAMPLE--------> If your taxes are RAISED causing a shortfall in your personal budget so your spouse who is not working then gets a job, and your household income rises.........was the tax hike good or bad? Your personal income as a household grew, so that means it is good? I don't know, you tell me!

Point is-------------> no matter how you cut it, receipts to the treasury GREW every time a tax cut was given in modern history.....Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, Bush Jr.

Now, if you want to argue that the method that created that reality is bad because of whatever happened, then listen we (at least I) will. But, to insist we are in error over our assertion of what actually happened is a losing proposition for you, because the government has given us the numbers. We are correct; and unless you want to call our government a bunch of liars, I suggest you change your plan of attack-)

No, you did not select federal, lying conservative. You selected all taxes (not just income tax) and for federal, local and state.

It even reads that on the link you gave, ya conservative moron...

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

We’re talking about federal income tax cuts (personal and corporate) and after being shown federal income tax revenues fell in 1982, 1983, 2001, 2002 and 2003, you had to switch to all taxes for all jurisdictions to show revenues increased during those years.

You’re actually leaning on tax revenues that had absolutely nothing to do with Reagan’s or Bush’s tax cuts to show an increase in revenue.

Scratch a conservative and find a liar.

You should quit while you’re behind.

You obviously can't read, lol. So here, I will give you one that you can NOT screw up. I have them all, so if you don't like this one, I will post another.

All of these charts that I am posting, come from the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, not necessarily listed on their site, but come from their own charts they do.

You can try and obfuscate the issue all you want, but you are in a losing position. Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

 

[imawhosure]

Then I guess you are suggesting that somehow tax cuts induce boom and bust cycles? Please explain the economic theory behind that bit of economic wisdom. Wouldn't you more insist if thinking, that governmental policy does that. What created the housing crisis? Government interference! It caused a FALSE signal to be sent that more housing was needed because of low interest rates on housing to get more people in them. That was NOT a signal sent by economics, but by government.

Let me ask you something---------> If you and I have 3% down on a house each, why would one of us get it, and the other not if we have everything the same?

REAL ANSWER----------> NEITHER of us should get it, but one of us will IF we were a minority in the past. That is not based on sound economic principles, that is based on government, social, engineering.

Now you have heard all the nonsense I bet, how the richer people caused this by moving up into houses they couldn't afford; and you would partially be correct. But the real question is-----------> what happened to their old house! How did they sell it, and start that vicious cycle of over reach by all? And that is exactly how NEW CONSTRUCTION prices went up so fast........because existing construction could be sold so quickly to anyone with a job making peanuts. Government did this, it DID!

Look back to newspapers and on youtube if you want to teach yourself something. Politicians from BOTH partys were heralding how absolutely wonderful they were because home ownership was so high, all because of their brilliance and policies.

And then, and then, and then, because of those policies, it all came crashing down.......not because of sound economics, but because of their brilliant social engineering, sound economic policies in housing were tossed out the window. You didn't hear either side of the aisle crowing so much anymore, did you. Instead, you seen them pointing the finger at each other, trying to pass the blame......when they BOTH screwed it up.

That is why YOU keeping as much of your money as possible while still funding the necessities of government, is sooooooo important. You can choose much wiser what is best for you than they can, and if you can't afford it by sound economic policies put forth by lending institutions, they won't allow you to buy it, IF you have to borrow money to do it!

we should be spending on infrastructure via macroeconomics, not on microeconomic stuff.

Hey, I am not doubting you, or agreeing with you. I am just showing you what through history has worked. The numbers prove it out. There is no denying it if you check the numbers.

spend and finance works; but, why blame the poor when the rich get their bailouts, as usual.

Wait a second here, lol. Who would you expect to get the most in cuts, those that pay 90% of the taxes, or those that pay 0? It is called a............wait for it.......tax CUT, not a tax gift-)

I expected an Infrastructure plan not a help the rich get richer quicker, plan.

Fine, but who owns the company's that are going to build it? I mean, you are expecting an economic impossibility. If someone is poor, they don't own a construction company, do they?

 

[danielpalos]

we should be spending on infrastructure via macroeconomics, not on microeconomic stuff.

Hey, I am not doubting you, or agreeing with you. I am just showing you what through history has worked. The numbers prove it out. There is no denying it if you check the numbers.

spend and finance works; but, why blame the poor when the rich get their bailouts, as usual.

Wait a second here, lol. Who would you expect to get the most in cuts, those that pay 90% of the taxes, or those that pay 0? It is called a............wait for it.......tax CUT, not a tax gift-)

I expected an Infrastructure plan not a help the rich get richer quicker, plan.

Fine, but who owns the company's that are going to build it? I mean, you are expecting an economic impossibility. If someone is poor, they don't own a construction company, do they?

just red herrings?

we should expect infrastructure plans as long as our alleged wars on, fill in the blank; combined.

 

[Faun]

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 you’re lying by changing topics.

Figures.

We were talking about cutting federal income taxes and here you are, shifting to all other taxes as well. Even worse, you’re now even including state and local tax revenue, which is s reflection on state and local tax rates/codes; not on Reagan’s tax cuts.

Happens every time... scratch a conservative— find a liar.

No, you can choose a chart that includes state and local. I chose federal total revenue in billions. Check it out!

All Federal tax cuts have NEVER caused revenue to drop, up to and including the Coolidge tax cuts. So when you insist it causes us to lose revenue, (not you, but Dani) my only response is------->show us where.

And also, you can NOT gauge a tax cut by measuring one aspect of it. You have to take the whole package in total. EXAMPLE--------> If your taxes are RAISED causing a shortfall in your personal budget so your spouse who is not working then gets a job, and your household income rises.........was the tax hike good or bad? Your personal income as a household grew, so that means it is good? I don't know, you tell me!

Point is-------------> no matter how you cut it, receipts to the treasury GREW every time a tax cut was given in modern history.....Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, Bush Jr.

Now, if you want to argue that the method that created that reality is bad because of whatever happened, then listen we (at least I) will. But, to insist we are in error over our assertion of what actually happened is a losing proposition for you, because the government has given us the numbers. We are correct; and unless you want to call our government a bunch of liars, I suggest you change your plan of attack-)

No, you did not select federal, lying conservative. You selected all taxes (not just income tax) and for federal, local and state.

It even reads that on the link you gave, ya conservative moron...

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

We’re talking about federal income tax cuts (personal and corporate) and after being shown federal income tax revenues fell in 1982, 1983, 2001, 2002 and 2003, you had to switch to all taxes for all jurisdictions to show revenues increased during those years.

You’re actually leaning on tax revenues that had absolutely nothing to do with Reagan’s or Bush’s tax cuts to show an increase in revenue.

Scratch a conservative and find a liar.

You should quit while you’re behind.

You obviously can't read, lol. So here, I will give you one that you can NOT screw up. I have them all, so if you don't like this one, I will post another.

All of these charts that I am posting, come from the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, not necessarily listed on their site, but come from their own charts they do.

You can try and obfuscate the issue all you want, but you are in a losing position. Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

I can’t read???

You’re the one who actually posted a link titled, Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1980-2007 - Federal State Local Data; while falsely claiming it was only federal revenues.

And you think I’m the one here with reading comprehension issues?

Scratch a conservative and find a liar.

 

[imawhosure]

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-)

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!

 

[imawhosure]

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 you’re lying by changing topics.

Figures.

We were talking about cutting federal income taxes and here you are, shifting to all other taxes as well. Even worse, you’re now even including state and local tax revenue, which is s reflection on state and local tax rates/codes; not on Reagan’s tax cuts.

Happens every time... scratch a conservative— find a liar.

No, you can choose a chart that includes state and local. I chose federal total revenue in billions. Check it out!

All Federal tax cuts have NEVER caused revenue to drop, up to and including the Coolidge tax cuts. So when you insist it causes us to lose revenue, (not you, but Dani) my only response is------->show us where.

And also, you can NOT gauge a tax cut by measuring one aspect of it. You have to take the whole package in total. EXAMPLE--------> If your taxes are RAISED causing a shortfall in your personal budget so your spouse who is not working then gets a job, and your household income rises.........was the tax hike good or bad? Your personal income as a household grew, so that means it is good? I don't know, you tell me!

Point is-------------> no matter how you cut it, receipts to the treasury GREW every time a tax cut was given in modern history.....Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, Bush Jr.

Now, if you want to argue that the method that created that reality is bad because of whatever happened, then listen we (at least I) will. But, to insist we are in error over our assertion of what actually happened is a losing proposition for you, because the government has given us the numbers. We are correct; and unless you want to call our government a bunch of liars, I suggest you change your plan of attack-)

No, you did not select federal, lying conservative. You selected all taxes (not just income tax) and for federal, local and state.

It even reads that on the link you gave, ya conservative moron...

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

We’re talking about federal income tax cuts (personal and corporate) and after being shown federal income tax revenues fell in 1982, 1983, 2001, 2002 and 2003, you had to switch to all taxes for all jurisdictions to show revenues increased during those years.

You’re actually leaning on tax revenues that had absolutely nothing to do with Reagan’s or Bush’s tax cuts to show an increase in revenue.

Scratch a conservative and find a liar.

You should quit while you’re behind.

You obviously can't read, lol. So here, I will give you one that you can NOT screw up. I have them all, so if you don't like this one, I will post another.

All of these charts that I am posting, come from the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, not necessarily listed on their site, but come from their own charts they do.

You can try and obfuscate the issue all you want, but you are in a losing position. Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

I can’t read???

You’re the one who actually posted a link titled, Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1980-2007 - Federal State Local Data; while falsely claiming it was only federal revenues.

And you think I’m the one here with reading comprehension issues?

Scratch a conservative and find a liar.

OK great one, show us your chart that federal government revenues fell in total. Do it, we are waiting-)

 

[danielpalos]

Cutting taxes doesn't work to increase revenue or we would not have budget deficits or massive debt.

 

[Faun]

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-)

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.

 

[Faun]

Now you’re lying by changing topics.

Figures.

We were talking about cutting federal income taxes and here you are, shifting to all other taxes as well. Even worse, you’re now even including state and local tax revenue, which is s reflection on state and local tax rates/codes; not on Reagan’s tax cuts.

Happens every time... scratch a conservative— find a liar.

No, you can choose a chart that includes state and local. I chose federal total revenue in billions. Check it out!

All Federal tax cuts have NEVER caused revenue to drop, up to and including the Coolidge tax cuts. So when you insist it causes us to lose revenue, (not you, but Dani) my only response is------->show us where.

And also, you can NOT gauge a tax cut by measuring one aspect of it. You have to take the whole package in total. EXAMPLE--------> If your taxes are RAISED causing a shortfall in your personal budget so your spouse who is not working then gets a job, and your household income rises.........was the tax hike good or bad? Your personal income as a household grew, so that means it is good? I don't know, you tell me!

Point is-------------> no matter how you cut it, receipts to the treasury GREW every time a tax cut was given in modern history.....Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, Bush Jr.

Now, if you want to argue that the method that created that reality is bad because of whatever happened, then listen we (at least I) will. But, to insist we are in error over our assertion of what actually happened is a losing proposition for you, because the government has given us the numbers. We are correct; and unless you want to call our government a bunch of liars, I suggest you change your plan of attack-)

No, you did not select federal, lying conservative. You selected all taxes (not just income tax) and for federal, local and state.

It even reads that on the link you gave, ya conservative moron...

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

We’re talking about federal income tax cuts (personal and corporate) and after being shown federal income tax revenues fell in 1982, 1983, 2001, 2002 and 2003, you had to switch to all taxes for all jurisdictions to show revenues increased during those years.

You’re actually leaning on tax revenues that had absolutely nothing to do with Reagan’s or Bush’s tax cuts to show an increase in revenue.

Scratch a conservative and find a liar.

You should quit while you’re behind.

You obviously can't read, lol. So here, I will give you one that you can NOT screw up. I have them all, so if you don't like this one, I will post another.

All of these charts that I am posting, come from the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, not necessarily listed on their site, but come from their own charts they do.

You can try and obfuscate the issue all you want, but you are in a losing position. Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

I can’t read???

You’re the one who actually posted a link titled, Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1980-2007 - Federal State Local Data; while falsely claiming it was only federal revenues.

And you think I’m the one here with reading comprehension issues?

Scratch a conservative and find a liar.

OK great one, show us your chart that federal government revenues fell in total. Do it, we are waiting-)

Why do you need me to post a link to show federal income tax revenues fell in 1982, 1983, 2001, 2002 and 2003 when you already posted a link showing that?

Here’s your own link again...

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

... you know, the one you thought was a gotcha where you could then change the parameters from federal income tax to all taxes in all jurisdictions.

 

[imawhosure]

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.

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.

 

[imawhosure]

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.

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!

 

[imawhosure]

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!

And why don't you tell them the federal governments difference in revenue stream between 1964 and 1965, you CHUMP-)

How about 1980, and 1981?

What about between 1997, and 1998 under Clinton?

You are pathetic, and I know, YOU know it-)

 

[Faun]

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.

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.

Why can’t you stop lying?? Seriously, what the **** is your malfunction.

You said the parties agreed on the tax cuts because of the 2001 recession. The tax cuts passed in June, 2001, 5 months before the recession was declared in November, 2001. I can’t help but notice your too afraid to answer my question...

how the **** were the parties agreeing to anything regarding a recession that wouldn’t be declared for another 5 months???

As far as your questions...

1. There was a recession in 2001 but it was not known we were in a recession when the tax cuts were debated in Congress. Meaning the recession played no part in the 2001 tax cuts.

2. From my recollection, yes.

3. Yes.

4. Yes, due to the exploding real estate bubble, not the tax cuts. And how do we know it wasn’t the tax cuts? Because federsl income taxes were cut in 2001, 2002 and 2003 AND federal income tax revenues fell in 2001, 2002 and 2003. What changed in 2004? The over-inflated real estate market was exploding uncontrollably, pushing up employment and capital gains through the roof (pardon the pun).

Scratch a conservative and find a liar.

 

[Faun]

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!

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.

 

[bendog]

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 question is whether Trump's tax cut will create sustained 4% growth. If it does, the 1.4 trillion doesn't matter. And I don't think you were whining when W cut taxes and started a war.

 

[Faun]

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!

And why don't you tell them the federal governments difference in revenue stream between 1964 and 1965, you CHUMP-)

How about 1980, and 1981?

What about between 1997, and 1998 under Clinton?

You are pathetic, and I know, YOU know it-)

It was a different economy in the early 60’s. There were no tax cuts in 1989, who knows why you mention it? And the economy in the late 90’s was fueled largely by the dot com bubble.

You’re argument is so infantile, you’re actually trying to claim tax cuts increase revenue because revenues increased in the early 60’s and the late 90’s even though revenue fell in 1982, 1983, 2001, 2002 and 2003.

Scratch a conservative and find a liar.

 

[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!

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.

 

[Whocares386]

Oops. That article just saying: "The way I see it, whenever Democrats are in power, the economy gets better, and then the Republicans come back to ruin it again. Even though Democrats are the ones who are blamed for increasing debt due to their social projects."

Republicans

 

[healthmyths]

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%

YOU are so WRONG!
Here is the TARP results THAT WERE PAID BACK WITH A PROFIT AND STILL OBAMA RANG UP THE WORST DEFICIT!

Bailout Scorecard | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica