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

[The Derp]

BUDGET SURPLUSES don't mean jack!

Actually, what they mean is that we can pay down the Public Debt, which is what Clinton did between 1998-2001.

So now you're telling me deficits and surpluses don't matter. So if budget surpluses don't matter, neither do budget deficits. Which clips your argument about debt hysteria at its knees.

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

Go **** yourself. You only refuse to accept this because doing so ruins your argument about debt. But you've accidentally belied your intentions in this argument; by saying surpluses don't matter, you are tacitly admitting that your entire budget deficit/debt argument is a load of shit. That none of it matters, and you're only making it a big deal because that's the only way you can have your voice heard...by posturing debt hysteria.

The only thing hysterical here is you.

 

[Dragonlady]

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

Good luck

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

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

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

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

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

It worked for Coolidge, JFK, Reagan and Bush.

It did not work for either Reagan or a bush. Even Reagan's economic advisers now admit that the bump in job growth and revenues created at the time Reagan cut taxes, had more to do with a drastic increase in government defence spending which created jobs. Even with the increase in spending, Reagan's great job growth rate is lower than Carter's in a much poor economy.

Bush's tax cuts were created at a time when the US was deploying massive of resources in men and equipment to the Middle East and calling up reserves to do so. W started wars with both Afghanistan and Iraq, in addition to massive spend on Medicare Part D, and kept the financial costs off the books so Americans were in essence lied to about the actual fiscal costs of both the wars and the Tax cuts, until the country was fiscally forced to the economy out of the hands of American Republicans before they bankrupted your economy utterly with Middle Eastern wars.

Now you have a Republican President in power who says there's only one way to deal with North Korea and there's only one way to deal with Kim and tosses his Secretary of State under the bus for suggesting that way might be diplomacy.

Republicans are now agreeing to run whatever deficits are necessary to implement massive tax cuts for the rich on zero evidence since Reagan's that they either create jobs or growth, and much evidence that the middle class cannot continue to carry the economic burden of a government which has systemically undermined the concept of balanced budgets.

Democrats may tax and spend, but they pay for their programs via taxes, while Repulicans remove those taxes and then complain about costly programs and how they're driving up the deficits.

The middle class no longer have the savings to survive another volatile destabilizing of the stock market which inevitably follows.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different results. It is a fallacy to believe that Republicans have once again consented to the idea of running a deficit while shifting more of the burden of paying for government, onto the middle class, and destabilizing the economy, and threatening war.

And all it took dapper Donnie is 10 months. A record for a Republican President.

Job creation was a negative number for the first time in over 7 1/2 years. Well done Republicans.

 

[Siete]

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

Good luck

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

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

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

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

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

It worked for Coolidge, JFK, Reagan and Bush.

It did not work for either Reagan or a bush. Even Reagan's economic advisers now admit that the bump in job growth and revenues created at the time Reagan cut taxes, had more to do with a drastic increase in government defence spending which created jobs. Even with the increase in spending, Reagan's great job growth rate is lower than Carter's in a much poor economy.

Bush's tax cuts were created at a time when the US was deploying massive of resources in men and equipment to the Middle East and calling up reserves to do so. W started wars with both Afghanistan and Iraq, in addition to massive spend on Medicare Part D, and kept the financial costs off the books so Americans were in essence lied to about the actual fiscal costs of both the wars and the Tax cuts, until the country was fiscally forced to the economy out of the hands of American Republicans before they bankrupted your economy utterly with Middle Eastern wars.

Now you have a Republican President in power who says there's only one way to deal with North Korea and there's only one way to deal with Kim and tosses his Secretary of State under the bus for suggesting that way might be diplomacy.

Republicans are now agreeing to run whatever deficits are necessary to implement massive tax cuts for the rich on zero evidence since Reagan's that they either create jobs or growth, and much evidence that the middle class cannot continue to carry the economic burden of a government which has systemically undermined the concept of balanced budgets.

Democrats may tax and spend, but they pay for their programs via taxes, while Repulicans remove those taxes and then complain about costly programs and how they're driving up the deficits.

The middle class no longer have the savings to survive another volatile destabilizing of the stock market which inevitably follows.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different results. It is a fallacy to believe that Republicans have once again consented to the idea of running a deficit while shifting more of the burden of paying for government, onto the middle class, and destabilizing the economy, and threatening war.

And all it took dapper Donnie is 10 months. A record for a Republican President.

Job creation was a negative number for the first time in over 7 1/2 years. Well done Republicans.

theres no way to convince RW idiots tax cuts wont save the world from demise.

F'em.

 

[hadit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conservatives can only debate dishonestly.

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

Your last point is why taxing the rich more won't do anything to the deficit or the debt. Congress would simply hike spending even more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cellblock2429]

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

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

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

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

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

/----/ Spending increased because Reagan had to rebuild the military after Jimma Carter slashed it to the bone. BTW Billy Clintoon and Obozo slashed the military as well. Why? Because DemocRATS hate the military.

 

[Spare_change]

How would you like it if I showed you how a 19 year old, making $25,000 a year (investing $100/month), could earn enough IN 12 YEARS to retire as a millionaire (actually, a millionaire and a half - $1.5 million) at age 65? Then, show you how - at age 31 (19 +12) create an environment that will convert that million dollars into $3.6 million in his retirement portfolio?

You're kidding yourself that someone making $25K can save for anything. Also, without a college degree, that 19 year old will not see themselves be a high-earner, and their income will be capped below that of those with college degrees. You live in a fantasy world.

BTW - someone making $25K a year qualifies for all sorts of income-determinant benefits including SNAP, Medicaid, EiTC, and other forms of welfare.

So, all your whining about not enough to save, and not enough to pay for healthcare, not enough for this, not enough for that is simply three things - 1) fiscal ignorance, 2) a lack of commitment to your responsibilities, and 3) begging for more and more of somebody else's money.

No, you're just refusing to accept the reality of wages of today because you've never had to work for anything in your life.

Fantasy world? Really?

Want the hard numbers? Got Excel? I'll send you the proof.

I never had to work a day in my life??? Interesting.

Listen, pissant --- I came from poor --- so poor we couldn't afford to buy the dirt so we could be called dirt poor. I used outdoor toilets at home until I went in the service. We didn't have TV until I was 16. We didn't get electricity until I was 8. My first job I made $0.65 per hour pumping gas and bagging groceries. I laid in snow fields, in the middle of the night, trying to shoot a deer (yes, illegally!) because if I didn't get one, we didn't eat. Not - didn't eat venison - we DIDN'T EAT!!! When I played sports in high school, I walked home every night - every ******* night, rain, shine, or snow. It was 4 miles. You have no concept of poor. You don't even know what the ******* word means.

And, what happened? I joined the service, learning a skill, worked 8-15 hours day and went to school full time, retired, got a job, started a company, sold it, and now I'm retired (did that at age 58) I'm not bragging, but I want you to understand. I AM the American success story, so don't tell me that you NEED all these government programs, don't tell me you CAN'T make it without the government, that it's just too TOUGH, that you could do it only if ... if the Man didn't hold you back, if those mean old Conservatives didn't say nasty things in front of you, . That's all bullshit - the simple fact of the matter is you are too damn lazy, you don't have the slightest idea what it means to work. You have no work ethic - in fact, it would seem you have no ethics whatsoever. You think it's all owed to you, and you don't give a good God damn who suffers to give it to you as long as you get it. You don't care if it's me, you don't care if it's your mother, you don't care if it's your own children, for Christ's sake.

But, yeah ... I've never had to work for anything in my life.

 

[Spare_change]

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

Nope. Wrong.

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

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

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

​

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

You truly don't have a clue about the real world, do you?

 

[Siete]

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

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

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

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

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

/----/ Spending increased because Reagan had to rebuild the military after Jimma Carter slashed it to the bone. BTW Billy Clintoon and Obozo slashed the military as well. Why? Because DemocRATS hate the military.

43 increased the debt 101%

50 years of imperical data and stats say youre full of shit.

ergo;

youre full of shit

 

[The Derp]

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

Of course, anecdotal bullshit is not an acceptable form of support for your argument, so you're gonna have to do better. I know, I know...it requires you to actually do work instead of making up things and playing pretend. Put in the effort. I don't think that's too much to ask of you.

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

People without college degrees are generally less intelligent than those with college degrees, and employers notice that too. If they want to attend college, they should have that choice and not go bankrupt because of it. No one is being forced to go to college, but it's heavily suggested if you want to become a high-earner. There exists virtually no path for anyone without a degree to be a high earner. BTW - "luck" isn't a viable path.

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

Puh-lease! We know what is the intent behind the "trade skill/anti-college" argument. Also, who pays for the trade skill education? Or is that also on the student too in your mind?

 

[Cellblock2429]

How would you like it if I showed you how a 19 year old, making $25,000 a year (investing $100/month), could earn enough IN 12 YEARS to retire as a millionaire (actually, a millionaire and a half - $1.5 million) at age 65? Then, show you how - at age 31 (19 +12) create an environment that will convert that million dollars into $3.6 million in his retirement portfolio?

You're kidding yourself that someone making $25K can save for anything. Also, without a college degree, that 19 year old will not see themselves be a high-earner, and their income will be capped below that of those with college degrees. You live in a fantasy world.

BTW - someone making $25K a year qualifies for all sorts of income-determinant benefits including SNAP, Medicaid, EiTC, and other forms of welfare.

So, all your whining about not enough to save, and not enough to pay for healthcare, not enough for this, not enough for that is simply three things - 1) fiscal ignorance, 2) a lack of commitment to your responsibilities, and 3) begging for more and more of somebody else's money.

No, you're just refusing to accept the reality of wages of today because you've never had to work for anything in your life.

Fantasy world? Really?

Want the hard numbers? Got Excel? I'll send you the proof.

I never had to work a day in my life??? Interesting.

Listen, pissant --- I came from poor --- so poor we couldn't afford to buy the dirt so we could be called dirt poor. I used outdoor toilets at home until I went in the service. We didn't have TV until I was 16. We didn't get electricity until I was 8. My first job I made $0.65 per hour pumping gas and bagging groceries. I laid in snow fields, in the middle of the night, trying to shoot a deer (yes, illegally!) because if I didn't get one, we didn't eat. Not - didn't eat venison - we DIDN'T EAT!!! When I played sports in high school, I walked home every night - every ******* night, rain, shine, or snow. It was 4 miles. You have no concept of poor. You don't even know what the ******* word means.

And, what happened? I joined the service, learning a skill, worked 8-15 hours day and went to school full time, retired, got a job, started a company, sold it, and now I'm retired (did that at age 58) I'm not bragging, but I want you to understand. I AM the American success story, so don't tell me that you NEED all these government programs, don't tell me you CAN'T make it without the government, that it's just too TOUGH, that you could do it only if ... if the Man didn't hold you back, if those mean old Conservatives didn't say nasty things in front of you, . That's all bullshit - the simple fact of the matter is you are too damn lazy, you don't have the slightest idea what it means to work. You have no work ethic - in fact, it would seem you have no ethics whatsoever. You think it's all owed to you, and you don't give a good God damn who suffers to give it to you as long as you get it. You don't care if it's me, you don't care if it's your mother, you don't care if it's your own children, for Christ's sake.

But, yeah ... I've never had to work for anything in my life.

/-----/ Incredible story. Good for you. And if you lived in a socialist state that Libs want to turn America into, you'd probably still be dirt poor hunting for your dinner. Compared to yours, I had the life of Reilly growing up middle class. I set out on my own at 18, worked a full time minimum wage job and weekends as a bartender. I rented a studio apartment, paid my own way and put myself through college. I didn't take nothin from nobody and retired in the upper class.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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

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

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

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

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

/----/ Spending increased because Reagan had to rebuild the military after Jimma Carter slashed it to the bone. BTW Billy Clintoon and Obozo slashed the military as well. Why? Because DemocRATS hate the military.

43 increased the debt 101%

50 years of imperical data and stats say youre full of shit.

ergo;

youre full of shit

/----/ GWB (43) didn't spend one dime, but the DemocRAT Congress that controlled the spending increased the debt 43% to rebuild the military after 9/11. ERGO you're full of shit.

 

[Spare_change]

<Cut and paste>

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

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

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

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

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

Oh? You backing off the discussion about debt and deficit, etc?

Tell me - just exactly what policies am I supporting that create deficit and debt?

Before you start, I have said nothing about the tax cuts - so don't even try that. My position isn't that we need to cut taxes, we need to cut spending.

See? You run off at the mouth - you have a little (tiny, small, miniscule) piece of information, and you're trying to hammer that peg until it fits.

Let's cut spending - and I'll let you keep taxes at the current rate. In fact, I'll go a step further, if you agree to cut spending 20%, I'll propose a 20% increase in taxation. Ready?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Good luck

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

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

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

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

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

It worked for Coolidge, JFK, Reagan and Bush.

It did not work for either Reagan or a bush. Even Reagan's economic advisers now admit that the bump in job growth and revenues created at the time Reagan cut taxes, had more to do with a drastic increase in government defence spending which created jobs. Even with the increase in spending, Reagan's great job growth rate is lower than Carter's in a much poor economy.

Bush's tax cuts were created at a time when the US was deploying massive of resources in men and equipment to the Middle East and calling up reserves to do so. W started wars with both Afghanistan and Iraq, in addition to massive spend on Medicare Part D, and kept the financial costs off the books so Americans were in essence lied to about the actual fiscal costs of both the wars and the Tax cuts, until the country was fiscally forced to the economy out of the hands of American Republicans before they bankrupted your economy utterly with Middle Eastern wars.

Now you have a Republican President in power who says there's only one way to deal with North Korea and there's only one way to deal with Kim and tosses his Secretary of State under the bus for suggesting that way might be diplomacy.

Republicans are now agreeing to run whatever deficits are necessary to implement massive tax cuts for the rich on zero evidence since Reagan's that they either create jobs or growth, and much evidence that the middle class cannot continue to carry the economic burden of a government which has systemically undermined the concept of balanced budgets.

Democrats may tax and spend, but they pay for their programs via taxes, while Repulicans remove those taxes and then complain about costly programs and how they're driving up the deficits.

The middle class no longer have the savings to survive another volatile destabilizing of the stock market which inevitably follows.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different results. It is a fallacy to believe that Republicans have once again consented to the idea of running a deficit while shifting more of the burden of paying for government, onto the middle class, and destabilizing the economy, and threatening war.

And all it took dapper Donnie is 10 months. A record for a Republican President.

Job creation was a negative number for the first time in over 7 1/2 years. Well done Republicans.

It did not work for either Reagan or a bush.

Dude!

Even Reagan's economic advisers now admit that the bump in job growth and revenues created at the time Reagan cut taxes, had more to do with a drastic increase in government defence spending which created jobs.

Which advisors? Link?

zero evidence since Reagan's that they either create jobs or growth,

Except for all the evidence from Coolidge, JFK, Reagan and Bush.

and much evidence that the middle class cannot continue to carry the economic burden of a government

What is the income rage for your definition of middle class?

Democrats may tax and spend, but they pay for their programs via taxes

Is that how Obama added $9.3 trillion to the debt?
By paying for his spending?

Job creation was a negative number for the first time in over 7 1/2 years.

If only Obama hadn't turned off his magic anti-hurricane machine............bastard!

 

[Spare_change]

How would you like it if I showed you how a 19 year old, making $25,000 a year (investing $100/month), could earn enough IN 12 YEARS to retire as a millionaire (actually, a millionaire and a half - $1.5 million) at age 65? Then, show you how - at age 31 (19 +12) create an environment that will convert that million dollars into $3.6 million in his retirement portfolio?

You're kidding yourself that someone making $25K can save for anything. Also, without a college degree, that 19 year old will not see themselves be a high-earner, and their income will be capped below that of those with college degrees. You live in a fantasy world.

BTW - someone making $25K a year qualifies for all sorts of income-determinant benefits including SNAP, Medicaid, EiTC, and other forms of welfare.

So, all your whining about not enough to save, and not enough to pay for healthcare, not enough for this, not enough for that is simply three things - 1) fiscal ignorance, 2) a lack of commitment to your responsibilities, and 3) begging for more and more of somebody else's money.

No, you're just refusing to accept the reality of wages of today because you've never had to work for anything in your life.

Fantasy world? Really?

Want the hard numbers? Got Excel? I'll send you the proof.

I never had to work a day in my life??? Interesting.

Listen, pissant --- I came from poor --- so poor we couldn't afford to buy the dirt so we could be called dirt poor. I used outdoor toilets at home until I went in the service. We didn't have TV until I was 16. We didn't get electricity until I was 8. My first job I made $0.65 per hour pumping gas and bagging groceries. I laid in snow fields, in the middle of the night, trying to shoot a deer (yes, illegally!) because if I didn't get one, we didn't eat. Not - didn't eat venison - we DIDN'T EAT!!! When I played sports in high school, I walked home every night - every ******* night, rain, shine, or snow. It was 4 miles. You have no concept of poor. You don't even know what the ******* word means.

And, what happened? I joined the service, learning a skill, worked 8-15 hours day and went to school full time, retired, got a job, started a company, sold it, and now I'm retired (did that at age 58) I'm not bragging, but I want you to understand. I AM the American success story, so don't tell me that you NEED all these government programs, don't tell me you CAN'T make it without the government, that it's just too TOUGH, that you could do it only if ... if the Man didn't hold you back, if those mean old Conservatives didn't say nasty things in front of you, . That's all bullshit - the simple fact of the matter is you are too damn lazy, you don't have the slightest idea what it means to work. You have no work ethic - in fact, it would seem you have no ethics whatsoever. You think it's all owed to you, and you don't give a good God damn who suffers to give it to you as long as you get it. You don't care if it's me, you don't care if it's your mother, you don't care if it's your own children, for Christ's sake.

But, yeah ... I've never had to work for anything in my life.

/-----/ Incredible story. Good for you. And if you lived in a socialist state that Libs want to turn America into, you'd probably still be dirt poor hunting for your dinner. Compared to yours, I had the life of Reilly growing up middle class. I set out on my own at 18, worked a full time minimum wage job and weekends as a bartender. I rented a studio apartment, paid my own way and put myself through college. I didn't take nothin from nobody and retired in the upper class.

It can be done - you just got to want it bad enough.

Somewhere along the way, we changed the American dream.

The American dream was always "I want my children to have it better than I did". When that was the focus, a family moved up the economic scale.

Today, the American dream is "I want it all - I want it now - and I don't want to work for it."

Pathetic.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

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

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

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

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

/----/ Spending increased because Reagan had to rebuild the military after Jimma Carter slashed it to the bone. BTW Billy Clintoon and Obozo slashed the military as well. Why? Because DemocRATS hate the military.

43 increased the debt 101%

50 years of imperical data and stats say youre full of shit.

ergo;

youre full of shit

43 increased the debt 101%

I know!
$4.9 trillion, just awful!

Obama's $9.3 trillion, meh.......

 

[Siete]

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

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

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

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

/----/ Spending increased because Reagan had to rebuild the military after Jimma Carter slashed it to the bone. BTW Billy Clintoon and Obozo slashed the military as well. Why? Because DemocRATS hate the military.

43 increased the debt 101%

50 years of imperical data and stats say youre full of shit.

ergo;

youre full of shit

/----/ GWB (43) didn't spend one dime, but the DemocRAT Congress that controlled the spending increased the debt 43% to rebuild the military after 9/11. ERGO you're full of shit.

supply side idiot ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

much, much, much smarter that facts proven by stats that contradict every damn thing they argue about.

yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

 

[The Derp]

You truly don't have a clue about the real world, do you?

You've already made it clear you refuse to live in the real-world, from gaslighting actual economic numbers from non-partisan agencies, to adhering to bullshit trickle-down economic nonsense.

 

[Spare_change]

BUDGET SURPLUSES don't mean jack!

Actually, what they mean is that we can pay down the Public Debt, which is what Clinton did between 1998-2001.

So now you're telling me deficits and surpluses don't matter. So if budget surpluses don't matter, neither do budget deficits. Which clips your argument about debt hysteria at its knees.

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

Go **** yourself. You only refuse to accept this because doing so ruins your argument about debt. But you've accidentally belied your intentions in this argument; by saying surpluses don't matter, you are tacitly admitting that your entire budget deficit/debt argument is a load of shit. That none of it matters, and you're only making it a big deal because that's the only way you can have your voice heard...by posturing debt hysteria.

The only thing hysterical here is you.

You are amazingly inept.

I said BUDGET SURPLUSES don't matter - a budget is nothing more than a planning document. It ain't what you plan, it's what you produce. A surplus in planning doesn't mean jack -- a surplus in performance is all that matters.

As for your childish little "go **** yourself" - to that I can only respond in two ways ... 1) you are amazingly immature, totally incapable of mounting a coherent and cogent counter-argument and, thus, are forced to resort to childish and vulgar responses in order to try to camouflage your ineptitude, or 2) at least I can reach ... don't you wish you could say the same?

Pick the one that fits your ego the best.

 

[The Derp]

I know!
$4.9 trillion, just awful!
Obama's $9.3 trillion, meh.......

Obama's $9.3T = unemployment rate below 5%, 11 million net private sector jobs, record low uninsured rate, record low renewable energy prices, stock market above 20,000, record corporate profits, dead OBL.

Bush's $4.9T = unemployment rate doubling, 460,000 net private sector jobs lost, erasing of a surplus, worst economic growth since Great Depression, 2 unwinnable wars of occupation, mortgage bubble, doubling debt, four record deficits, 3,000 dead on 9/11, 4,000 dead troops, millions of wounded troops we will spend the next 60+ years paying for, OBL hanging out in Abbotabad.

When you stack up what each President's debt gave us, it becomes clear that this isn't a debt argument at all but rather an argument about results.

 

[hadit]

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

Of course, anecdotal bullshit is not an acceptable form of support for your argument, so you're gonna have to do better. I know, I know...it requires you to actually do work instead of making up things and playing pretend. Put in the effort. I don't think that's too much to ask of you.

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

People without college degrees are generally less intelligent than those with college degrees, and employers notice that too. If they want to attend college, they should have that choice and not go bankrupt because of it. No one is being forced to go to college, but it's heavily suggested if you want to become a high-earner. There exists virtually no path for anyone without a degree to be a high earner. BTW - "luck" isn't a viable path.

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

Puh-lease! We know what is the intent behind the "trade skill/anti-college" argument. Also, who pays for the trade skill education? Or is that also on the student too in your mind?

Are you really this obtuse or do you have to work at it? You're the one trying to claim you can't become a high earner without a degree. I'm merely pointing out that you're full of crap. Sure, on average a degree puts you ahead. I know, I have one. The guy I'm talking about doesn't have one and is doing great because he refused to let the lack of one hold him back. And, since you apparently missed it the first time, his wife supported them while he did it. Like I said, you have no idea what a driven, creative person can do. Maybe it's your collective mindset, where creativity and drive are forbidden.