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

[francoHFW]

I know, it only made it worse.

Crying crocodile tears over SS's solvency is hollow bullshit no one buys.

That would result in higher payouts to those rich guys.

Says who? You? But you're a fraud...and the two are not intrinsically linked, nor do they have to be.

Not solved.

No, it is solved. You just don't want to admit it because you don't want to give me the satisfaction.

Obama said he did that to help the recovery. Was he lying?

No. A temporary payroll tax cut is what he could do to help the economy at the time. That's wholly different from your tax cut proposals, which are on income and are permanent.

Says who? You?

Benefits are based on the money you pay in. There is a formula and everything. Idiot.

No. A temporary payroll tax cut is what he could do to help the economy at the time.

Right. Obama said he cut taxes to help the economy.
You said cutting taxes doesn't help the economy.

Who is the liar, you or Obama?

GOP tax cuts for the rich don't help the economy. Democratic tax cuts on the middle class and the non-rich do help the economy, brainwashed functional moron dupe. Duh.

GOP tax cuts for the rich don't help the economy.

GOP tax cuts for everybody help the economy.

Democratic tax cuts on the middle class and the non-rich do help the economy,

Excellent! Can you prove it?

After 35 years of new b*******GOP / reaganism bloating the rich and Wrecking the middle class what I say is true anybody knows it except silly dupes like you...

 

[francoHFW]

I know, it only made it worse.

Crying crocodile tears over SS's solvency is hollow bullshit no one buys.

That would result in higher payouts to those rich guys.

Says who? You? But you're a fraud...and the two are not intrinsically linked, nor do they have to be.

Not solved.

No, it is solved. You just don't want to admit it because you don't want to give me the satisfaction.

Obama said he did that to help the recovery. Was he lying?

No. A temporary payroll tax cut is what he could do to help the economy at the time. That's wholly different from your tax cut proposals, which are on income and are permanent.

Says who? You?

Benefits are based on the money you pay in. There is a formula and everything. Idiot.

No. A temporary payroll tax cut is what he could do to help the economy at the time.

Right. Obama said he cut taxes to help the economy.
You said cutting taxes doesn't help the economy.

Who is the liar, you or Obama?

Can you really be this thick?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I know, it only made it worse.

Crying crocodile tears over SS's solvency is hollow bullshit no one buys.

That would result in higher payouts to those rich guys.

Says who? You? But you're a fraud...and the two are not intrinsically linked, nor do they have to be.

Not solved.

No, it is solved. You just don't want to admit it because you don't want to give me the satisfaction.

Obama said he did that to help the recovery. Was he lying?

No. A temporary payroll tax cut is what he could do to help the economy at the time. That's wholly different from your tax cut proposals, which are on income and are permanent.

Says who? You?

Benefits are based on the money you pay in. There is a formula and everything. Idiot.

No. A temporary payroll tax cut is what he could do to help the economy at the time.

Right. Obama said he cut taxes to help the economy.
You said cutting taxes doesn't help the economy.

Who is the liar, you or Obama?

GOP tax cuts for the rich don't help the economy. Democratic tax cuts on the middle class and the non-rich do help the economy, brainwashed functional moron dupe. Duh.

GOP tax cuts for the rich don't help the economy.

GOP tax cuts for everybody help the economy.

Democratic tax cuts on the middle class and the non-rich do help the economy,

Excellent! Can you prove it?

After 35 years of new b*******GOP / reaganism bloating the rich and Wrecking the middle class what I say is true anybody knows it except silly dupes like you...

So no proof. Thanks.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I know, it only made it worse.

Crying crocodile tears over SS's solvency is hollow bullshit no one buys.

That would result in higher payouts to those rich guys.

Says who? You? But you're a fraud...and the two are not intrinsically linked, nor do they have to be.

Not solved.

No, it is solved. You just don't want to admit it because you don't want to give me the satisfaction.

Obama said he did that to help the recovery. Was he lying?

No. A temporary payroll tax cut is what he could do to help the economy at the time. That's wholly different from your tax cut proposals, which are on income and are permanent.

Says who? You?

Benefits are based on the money you pay in. There is a formula and everything. Idiot.

No. A temporary payroll tax cut is what he could do to help the economy at the time.

Right. Obama said he cut taxes to help the economy.
You said cutting taxes doesn't help the economy.

Who is the liar, you or Obama?

Can you really be this thick?

I agree, both Obama and Derp are lying idiots.

 

[francoHFW]

I know, it only made it worse.

Crying crocodile tears over SS's solvency is hollow bullshit no one buys.

That would result in higher payouts to those rich guys.

Says who? You? But you're a fraud...and the two are not intrinsically linked, nor do they have to be.

Not solved.

No, it is solved. You just don't want to admit it because you don't want to give me the satisfaction.

Obama said he did that to help the recovery. Was he lying?

No. A temporary payroll tax cut is what he could do to help the economy at the time. That's wholly different from your tax cut proposals, which are on income and are permanent.

Says who? You?

Benefits are based on the money you pay in. There is a formula and everything. Idiot.

No. A temporary payroll tax cut is what he could do to help the economy at the time.

Right. Obama said he cut taxes to help the economy.
You said cutting taxes doesn't help the economy.

Who is the liar, you or Obama?

Can you really be this thick?

I agree, both Obama and Derp are lying idiots.

The proof that tax cuts for the middle class work is Obama's cutting the payroll tax in 2009... It's the only time the middle class got a tax cut forever, despite what lying Republicans tell you... They only give tax cuts to the rich in the end... And then the state and local taxes and fees go up, which kills the non-rich.

 

[francoHFW]

I know, it only made it worse.

Crying crocodile tears over SS's solvency is hollow bullshit no one buys.

That would result in higher payouts to those rich guys.

Says who? You? But you're a fraud...and the two are not intrinsically linked, nor do they have to be.

Not solved.

No, it is solved. You just don't want to admit it because you don't want to give me the satisfaction.

Obama said he did that to help the recovery. Was he lying?

No. A temporary payroll tax cut is what he could do to help the economy at the time. That's wholly different from your tax cut proposals, which are on income and are permanent.

Says who? You?

Benefits are based on the money you pay in. There is a formula and everything. Idiot.

No. A temporary payroll tax cut is what he could do to help the economy at the time.

Right. Obama said he cut taxes to help the economy.
You said cutting taxes doesn't help the economy.

Who is the liar, you or Obama?

Can you really be this thick?

I agree, both Obama and Derp are lying idiots.

We respect and admire your brainwashed functional idiot opinion...

 

[francoHFW]

1) I made the argument - provided the facts - you didn't even read them - and you sure as hell can't refute them. So, instead you chose to ignore them.

NO! Your conventional wisdom is not fact. You saying something doesn't make it so. You have no authority to say it, you have no credibility to say it, you have no qualification to say it. Your personal opinion means as much as my cat's. And he has the good sense to clean his butt after he shits, whereas you....jury's out on that one.

2) You're right -- neither budget "surpluses" or budget "deficits" matter. That's your plan -- though why the **** you would plan to fail (deficit) eludes me ---- it's your performance that matters (or lack of it).

So if deficits don't matter, why do you care so much about the debt?

A deficit doesn't mean failure. What makes you think it does? Who taught you that? Or are you applying what you think is the standard for individuals to that of the government? Why would you do that? INdividuals die, governments don't. The risk in lending to individuals is the risk they will never pay back the loan because they could die and leave the debts uncollected. No such risk exists for the government because it isn't a person that "dies", and we issue bonds every year which means the debt will not, and cannot all be paid off at one time.

So why are you so consumed with federal debt? Tell me what you think will ultimately happen, and I'll be happy to tell you how you're wrong.

Let's be absolutely 100% clear ---- I said that planned BUDGET DEFICITS don't matter ... only real deficits matter. Quite trying to intentionally misinterpret what I said.

Tell me - what is the purpose of a budget? Think hard, now ... it is the documentation of exactly how you intend to spend the money you have. If you can't do the job assigned within the budget you are give, you can only have one of two problems - you have too much job or not enough money. Pretty simple, huh?

Spending more than you have is fiscally irresponsible - particularly given your track record of deficit spending over the past 50 years. Doing less than the job assigned, while exactly what you were hired to do, is politically irresponsible. You choose political irresponsiblity over fiscal responsibility.

Don't make it any more difficult than it is.

You speak of individuals dying, but governments don't. You are, of course, exactly wrong. That is a naive, and uneducated, attempt to justify your erroneous economic fallacy.

When you can't/won't pay your bills, we confiscate what you own and distribute it to your lenders. When the country can't/won't pay their bills, exactly the same thing will happen. When you can't get the job done, we fire you. When the government can't get the job done, they get fired, too. How many revolutions have started because of government incompetence?

Deficit spending is a seldom-used strategy that requires some serious justification. It is not a standard deviation to be used every year. If you use it too often, you create a self-consuming sinkhole that, eventually, you will not be able to recover from.

Thank God we had deficit spending under Obama, about 8 trillion of it, otherwise we would have had another full-blown GOP World depression. Thanks GOP good job you too dupes... You'll do it again too at this rate.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I know, it only made it worse.

Crying crocodile tears over SS's solvency is hollow bullshit no one buys.

That would result in higher payouts to those rich guys.

Says who? You? But you're a fraud...and the two are not intrinsically linked, nor do they have to be.

Not solved.

No, it is solved. You just don't want to admit it because you don't want to give me the satisfaction.

Obama said he did that to help the recovery. Was he lying?

No. A temporary payroll tax cut is what he could do to help the economy at the time. That's wholly different from your tax cut proposals, which are on income and are permanent.

Says who? You?

Benefits are based on the money you pay in. There is a formula and everything. Idiot.

No. A temporary payroll tax cut is what he could do to help the economy at the time.

Right. Obama said he cut taxes to help the economy.
You said cutting taxes doesn't help the economy.

Who is the liar, you or Obama?

Can you really be this thick?

I agree, both Obama and Derp are lying idiots.

The proof that tax cuts for the middle class work is Obama's cutting the payroll tax in 2009... It's the only time the middle class got a tax cut forever, despite what lying Republicans tell you... They only give tax cuts to the rich in the end... And then the state and local taxes and fees go up, which kills the non-rich.

The proof that tax cuts for the middle class work is Obama's cutting the payroll tax in 2009.

His weak ass recovery is proof of its success? LOL!

It's the only time the middle class got a tax cut forever,

Clinton promised them one, instead hiked their taxes in 1993. Asshole!

Reagan and W both gave the middle class a tax cut.

And then the state and local taxes and fees go up

Yeah, asshole libs just screwed the middle class in Illinois. ******* asshole libs.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I know, it only made it worse.

Crying crocodile tears over SS's solvency is hollow bullshit no one buys.

That would result in higher payouts to those rich guys.

Says who? You? But you're a fraud...and the two are not intrinsically linked, nor do they have to be.

Not solved.

No, it is solved. You just don't want to admit it because you don't want to give me the satisfaction.

Obama said he did that to help the recovery. Was he lying?

No. A temporary payroll tax cut is what he could do to help the economy at the time. That's wholly different from your tax cut proposals, which are on income and are permanent.

Says who? You?

Benefits are based on the money you pay in. There is a formula and everything. Idiot.

No. A temporary payroll tax cut is what he could do to help the economy at the time.

Right. Obama said he cut taxes to help the economy.
You said cutting taxes doesn't help the economy.

Who is the liar, you or Obama?

Can you really be this thick?

I agree, both Obama and Derp are lying idiots.

We respect and admire your brainwashed functional idiot opinion...

Pointing out Obama's lies makes you sad, doesn't it?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

1) I made the argument - provided the facts - you didn't even read them - and you sure as hell can't refute them. So, instead you chose to ignore them.

NO! Your conventional wisdom is not fact. You saying something doesn't make it so. You have no authority to say it, you have no credibility to say it, you have no qualification to say it. Your personal opinion means as much as my cat's. And he has the good sense to clean his butt after he shits, whereas you....jury's out on that one.

2) You're right -- neither budget "surpluses" or budget "deficits" matter. That's your plan -- though why the **** you would plan to fail (deficit) eludes me ---- it's your performance that matters (or lack of it).

So if deficits don't matter, why do you care so much about the debt?

A deficit doesn't mean failure. What makes you think it does? Who taught you that? Or are you applying what you think is the standard for individuals to that of the government? Why would you do that? INdividuals die, governments don't. The risk in lending to individuals is the risk they will never pay back the loan because they could die and leave the debts uncollected. No such risk exists for the government because it isn't a person that "dies", and we issue bonds every year which means the debt will not, and cannot all be paid off at one time.

So why are you so consumed with federal debt? Tell me what you think will ultimately happen, and I'll be happy to tell you how you're wrong.

Let's be absolutely 100% clear ---- I said that planned BUDGET DEFICITS don't matter ... only real deficits matter. Quite trying to intentionally misinterpret what I said.

Tell me - what is the purpose of a budget? Think hard, now ... it is the documentation of exactly how you intend to spend the money you have. If you can't do the job assigned within the budget you are give, you can only have one of two problems - you have too much job or not enough money. Pretty simple, huh?

Spending more than you have is fiscally irresponsible - particularly given your track record of deficit spending over the past 50 years. Doing less than the job assigned, while exactly what you were hired to do, is politically irresponsible. You choose political irresponsiblity over fiscal responsibility.

Don't make it any more difficult than it is.

You speak of individuals dying, but governments don't. You are, of course, exactly wrong. That is a naive, and uneducated, attempt to justify your erroneous economic fallacy.

When you can't/won't pay your bills, we confiscate what you own and distribute it to your lenders. When the country can't/won't pay their bills, exactly the same thing will happen. When you can't get the job done, we fire you. When the government can't get the job done, they get fired, too. How many revolutions have started because of government incompetence?

Deficit spending is a seldom-used strategy that requires some serious justification. It is not a standard deviation to be used every year. If you use it too often, you create a self-consuming sinkhole that, eventually, you will not be able to recover from.

Thank God we had deficit spending under Obama, about 8 trillion of it, otherwise we would have had another full-blown GOP World depression. Thanks GOP good job you too dupes... You'll do it again too at this rate.

Thank God we had deficit spending under Obama, about 8 trillion of it

You love Obama's $9.3 trillion in added deficits? You're dumber than I first thought.

otherwise we would have had another full-blown GOP World depression.

The recession ended in June 2009. Moron.

 

[Spare_change]

I know, it only made it worse.

Crying crocodile tears over SS's solvency is hollow bullshit no one buys.

That would result in higher payouts to those rich guys.

Says who? You? But you're a fraud...and the two are not intrinsically linked, nor do they have to be.

Not solved.

No, it is solved. You just don't want to admit it because you don't want to give me the satisfaction.

Obama said he did that to help the recovery. Was he lying?

No. A temporary payroll tax cut is what he could do to help the economy at the time. That's wholly different from your tax cut proposals, which are on income and are permanent.

Says who? You?

Benefits are based on the money you pay in. There is a formula and everything. Idiot.

No. A temporary payroll tax cut is what he could do to help the economy at the time.

Right. Obama said he cut taxes to help the economy.
You said cutting taxes doesn't help the economy.

Who is the liar, you or Obama?

GOP tax cuts for the rich don't help the economy. Democratic tax cuts on the middle class and the non-rich do help the economy, brainwashed functional moron dupe. Duh.

GOP tax cuts for the rich don't help the economy.

GOP tax cuts for everybody help the economy.

Democratic tax cuts on the middle class and the non-rich do help the economy,

Excellent! Can you prove it?

Prove it??

PROVE IT?

Hell, he said it!

Ain't that good enough for you???

 

[francoHFW]

I know, it only made it worse.

Crying crocodile tears over SS's solvency is hollow bullshit no one buys.

That would result in higher payouts to those rich guys.

Says who? You? But you're a fraud...and the two are not intrinsically linked, nor do they have to be.

Not solved.

No, it is solved. You just don't want to admit it because you don't want to give me the satisfaction.

Obama said he did that to help the recovery. Was he lying?

No. A temporary payroll tax cut is what he could do to help the economy at the time. That's wholly different from your tax cut proposals, which are on income and are permanent.

Says who? You?

Benefits are based on the money you pay in. There is a formula and everything. Idiot.

No. A temporary payroll tax cut is what he could do to help the economy at the time.

Right. Obama said he cut taxes to help the economy.
You said cutting taxes doesn't help the economy.

Who is the liar, you or Obama?

GOP tax cuts for the rich don't help the economy. Democratic tax cuts on the middle class and the non-rich do help the economy, brainwashed functional moron dupe. Duh.

GOP tax cuts for the rich don't help the economy.

GOP tax cuts for everybody help the economy.

Democratic tax cuts on the middle class and the non-rich do help the economy,

Excellent! Can you prove it?

Prove it??

PROVE IT?

Hell, he said it!

Ain't that good enough for you???

So you brain-dead morons only want tax cuts for the bloated rich, and only they work, right? Brilliant!

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

Democrats don't hate the military, they don't start stupid, expensive wars. Blowing shit up is expensive. Maintaining two battle ready armies in two foreign counties is expensive, as are building operational bases and supplying them. A lot of money gets spent in the theatre of operations and never returns to the US.

Reagan managed to avoid wars which meant that almost all military spending was done in the US creating American jobs.

 

[Dschrute3]

You sure about 'most of it?' I mean Barack Hussein Obama alone, added more to the Debt than most past US Presidents combined. So if we're talkin 'most', it's Hussein in a Landslide. That being said, the Republican Party has been hijacked by Big Government Neocon/RINO jerkoffs. They have contributed significantly to the Debt. They're just about as bad as Hussein/Democrats. We desperately need more options. The Two-Party System is sinking us. It's actually very sad.

 

[Spare_change]

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.

Democrats don't hate the military, they don't start stupid, expensive wars. Blowing shit up is expensive. Maintaining two battle ready armies in two foreign counties is expensive, as are building operational bases and supplying them. A lot of money gets spent in the theatre of operations and never returns to the US.

Reagan managed to avoid wars which meant that almost all military spending was done in the US creating American jobs.

Democrats DO hate the military --- look at Obama's track record of abuse. They don't start wars? Tell that to Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson. Even Obama spent 8 years at war.

 

[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.

Democrats don't hate the military, they don't start stupid, expensive wars. Blowing shit up is expensive. Maintaining two battle ready armies in two foreign counties is expensive, as are building operational bases and supplying them. A lot of money gets spent in the theatre of operations and never returns to the US.

Reagan managed to avoid wars which meant that almost all military spending was done in the US creating American jobs.

/----/ Seriously?
7 Times Hillary Showed She HATES The Military

John Kerry calls American troops terrorists - YouTube
▶ 1:15

Nov 9, 2006 - Uploaded by notoriousgop
John Kerry says American troops terrorize women and children and that they ... The world hates us and the US ...

 

[The Derp]

Your quote is almost right ----- what it really says is that the budget surplus can be PROJECTED to reduce the amount of debt.

Did you see the word "projected" in there? No. So this is you foisting a made-up standard on the spot in order to lend your argument credibility it doesn't have. Clinton routinely paid down the Public Debt over the course of four years. Virtually half of the months during that span saw a reduction in Public Debt (and you can simply look at the Treasury Statements on the Public Debt to see that). So POTUS doesn't have to wait to the end of the FY in order to reduce Public Debt. So you're just talking out of your ass.

A budget is nothing more than numbers on a piece of paper. It is surplus DOLLARS that reduce the amount of debt. Notice the very last sentence of your quote. It doesn't say "budget surpluses" - it says "cash surpluses".

You're a ******* idiot. It literally says "when the budget is in surplus". Now you're imagining words that aren't there, to serve a point that doesn't exist, to protect an ego no one cares about.

YPlease tell me that isn't the best you've got to offer.

Your slap-dash, ham-fisted attempt to deflect from what is clearly you being wrong is shameless. I quoted the GAO directly. You tried to invent words and phrases that don't exist, to insert into your argument in order to avoid culpability for the fact that you talk out of your ass.

 

[The Derp]

I have some proceeds to reinvest, which banks make $10s of billions in a matter of weeks?

Apologies, I meant in a matter of months. However, in Q2 2017, the ten biggest banks made a combined $30B in profit with the rest adding about $85B. So a couple hundred million dollar fines mean little to them. What was the largest fine as it relates to Dodd-Frank issued by the government and why was it issued? Because the banks acted fraudulently. In 8 years, the big banks paid about $115B in fines related to their behavior during the mortgage crisis...which amounts to one quarter's worth of profits spread over 8 years. How is that an attack on the banks? Please articulate.

Dodd-Frank is more than 20,000 pages of regulations. Pretty specific.

I asked you specifically what from that you are talking about. You'd think in 20,000 pages, you'd be able to come up with a single example that isn't re-instituting capitalization after Bush eliminated it in 2004 (which doesn't harm banks, but protects them). Now you're just being lazy. When asked specifically what from that legislation you think is an attack on banks, you cannot say. Which means you're just repeating this claim you heard that Dodd-Frank was an "attack on the banks". Which means you didn't come to that conclusion on your own. Which means you're taking your cues from others. Which means you don't think for yourself.

Require banks to carry ever higher levels of capital to back their loan portfolio.
Call bank CEOs on the carpet for not making loans.

And these are attacks, how? What do you mean "[called] on the carpet for not making loans"? What do you mean by that? And how is it an attack for banks to carry higher levels of capital? That's what they did prior to April 2004, when Bush eliminated the net capital rule.

You have a funny definition of "attack", because none of what you're describing are attacks

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I have some proceeds to reinvest, which banks make $10s of billions in a matter of weeks?

Apologies, I meant in a matter of months. However, in Q2 2017, the ten biggest banks made a combined $30B in profit with the rest adding about $85B. So a couple hundred million dollar fines mean little to them. What was the largest fine as it relates to Dodd-Frank issued by the government and why was it issued? Because the banks acted fraudulently. In 8 years, the big banks paid about $115B in fines related to their behavior during the mortgage crisis...which amounts to one quarter's worth of profits spread over 8 years. How is that an attack on the banks? Please articulate.

Dodd-Frank is more than 20,000 pages of regulations. Pretty specific.

I asked you specifically what from that you are talking about. You'd think in 20,000 pages, you'd be able to come up with a single example that isn't re-instituting capitalization after Bush eliminated it in 2004 (which doesn't harm banks, but protects them). Now you're just being lazy. When asked specifically what from that legislation you think is an attack on banks, you cannot say. Which means you're just repeating this claim you heard that Dodd-Frank was an "attack on the banks". Which means you didn't come to that conclusion on your own. Which means you're taking your cues from others. Which means you don't think for yourself.

Require banks to carry ever higher levels of capital to back their loan portfolio.
Call bank CEOs on the carpet for not making loans.

And these are attacks, how? What do you mean "[called] on the carpet for not making loans"? What do you mean by that? And how is it an attack for banks to carry higher levels of capital? That's what they did prior to April 2004, when Bush eliminated the net capital rule.

You have a funny definition of "attack", because none of what you're describing are attacks

However, in Q2 2017, the ten biggest banks made a combined $30B in profit with the rest adding about $85B.

Wow! Your math is really, really bad.

Here's a hint, revenue is not equal to profit.

isn't re-instituting capitalization after Bush eliminated it in 2004

Bush didn't "eliminate capitalization".

(which doesn't harm banks, but protects them).

Forcing banks to hold 3 or 4 times their pre-crisis capital levels is an attack on banks.
After hiking capital requirements, attacking banks for not lending is also an attack on banks.

 

[The Derp]

Banks don't need capital to hold mortgages that they securitize and sell. Moron.

They didn't as of April 2004. They did before that. Your problem is that you don't know what the **** you're talking about. Bush eliminated the net capital rule in April 2004 in order to allow Wall Street to over-leverage its capital to purchase and then securitize subprime loans. It's exactly why the net capital rule was removed. There was no other reason.

Dodd-Frank was more expensive for small and medium size banks than for JPMorgan.

But that wasn't what you said earlier. So you've unapologetically moved the goalposts in this debate because you got out ahead of yourself, because you have a habit of talking out of your ass. You said Dodd-Frank was "an attack on banks". You didn't define what "banks" meant, because words don't mean what they mean anymore. So you jumped from it being "an attack on the banks" to it being "an attack on small business" back to it being "an attack on banks, but small and medium ones". So right there, you changed the parameters of what you meant twice and you expect me to take it seriously? Seems like you're just talking out of your ass, with no clear thought as to what you mean. So you're just reacting. You're not thinking. So Dodd-Frank wasn't an attack on Wall Street banks, then, despite you saying it was, right? So do you want to re-state what you meant in this debate for a third time or what?

When you make it harder for banks to make loans....banks make fewer loans.Hard to believe, I know.

Exactly how was it harder for banks to make loans as a result of Dodd-Frank? Take me through the process and how the Dodd-Frank regulation prevented a bank like Citi from giving a loan to a small business. You should be able to since you think you know all about what Dodd-Frank did and how it attacked banks/small businesses/small & medium banks/whatever the next parameter change is. What's hard to believe is anything you say since we've come to find out you have no shame when it comes to presenting half-truths and shifting goalposts.

I know. Idiotic to add regulations and then whine that lending was reduced.

How did Dodd-Frank regulations prevent banks from lending? That's a ******* lie if there ever was one. Re-instituting a net capital rule doesn't prevent a bank from making a loan. It prevents a bank from purchasing derivative assets that they repackage and sell above what their net capital is. That's got nothing to do with lending to consumers and small businesses.

Obama doubled MPG between 2009 and 2013? Hilarious! Link?

He doubled the fuel efficiency standards to 54 mpgs by 2025. Hard to see how or why that's a bad thing. Stop being a sophist. You know what he did. It's shit like this that makes it so hard to take anything you say seriously. Because you bounce from feigned obtuseness to genuine obtuseness.

If only you had the proof I asked for....show me where Obama encouraged fracking.

I quoted his SOTU speech where he talked about more natural gas than ever before. Not sure what the **** more you want. Fracking is how you extract natural gas. So...do you lack the critical thinking skills to put two-and-two together? Of course. Because you're a sometimes sophist and sometimes obtuse jackass.