To the NeverTrumpers....

[Onyx]

We are less than a week away, and I understand you have your principles but it's time to really think about this and set aside personality differences. If you had rather cling to your principles and see Hillary elected, that's fine... I understand completely. But don't ***** and complain that Hillary cannot be elected because THAT is precisely what is going to happen if Trump doesn't win.

I can ***** and complain all I want when she is elected, and I didn't vote Trump.

Neither of these dumbasses possess the right to rule over me, whether there is a voting system in place or not.

 

[sealybobo]

Even if you don't like Trump, he hasn't done anything yet. Everybody knows what Hillary has done already and how many lives it has already costed (and what we know may be just a tip of an iceberg!).

Trump may sound rough, but at least he's not a crook and his actions din't cost any Americans' lives... And there is a huge difference between words and actions.

Too bad so many people don't understand that their vote could be decisive for the future of their country and their families.

#NeverTrumpers! Try not to look like ostriches with their heads in sand and butts sticking out. It is a very awkward position in both meanings of this word.

You guys said that about bush and gore and how many lives did a bad Republican president cost us?

And you cry about 4 dead in Benghazi?

 

[Onyx]

You guys said that about bush and gore and how many lives did a bad Republican president cost us?

And you cry about 4 dead in Benghazi?

Do not forget the Reagan Doctrine.

 

[sealybobo]

You guys said that about bush and gore and how many lives did a bad Republican president cost us?

And you cry about 4 dead in Benghazi?

Do not forget the Reagan Doctrine.

I feel as dumb as Sarah Palin when she was asked about the bush doctrine. What was the Reagan d?

 

[Onyx]

I feel as dumb as Sarah Palin when she was asked about the bush doctrine. What was the Reagan d?

A policy of funding opposition movements in the third world to "roll back" the boogeyman that was communism.

I believe the Reagan administration financed the Afghan Mujaheddin, Nicaraguan Contras, Eritrean Liberation Front, Angolan UNITA, Cambodian KPNLF, and Laotian Royal Resistance. I also know that he gave chemical weapons to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war.

The Nicaragua Contras were notorious terrorists, the Eritrean Liberation Front formed a populist dictatorship regarded as being worse than North Korea, and UNITA is implicit in many warcrimes. Supplying Saddam Hussien with chemical weapons didn't exactly help his legacy either.

Oh, and almost forget the 1983 invasion of Grenada to stop the Cuban backed PRG.

 

[JimBowie1958]

A policy of funding opposition movements in the third world to "roll back" the boogeyman that was communism.

Yeah that "boogeyman" slaughtered over 100 million victims by the most conservative estimates, idiot.

 

[Onyx]

Yeah that "boogeyman" slaughtered over 100 million victims by the most conservative estimates, idiot.

By the 1960s, with Joseph Stalin out of the way and Mao Zedong tamed, the threat of communism became a propagated talking piece to justify US imperialism and institutionalized state terror throughout the third world.

The reality is that the Pathet Lao, PRG, FNLA, DRA, FSLN, CPV, and Derg all had moral high ground over the United States by the time of the Reagan Doctrine

 

[Boss]

Clinton had a balanced budget. Bush messed it up, but the numbers were there. You can't balance a budget with cutting taxes. And you sure can't balance a budget by starting a recession with tariffs.

LOL.... We can keep on going through the same thing over and over... NO... Clinton never balanced the budget. Repeat after me... Clinton never balanced the budget. One more time, just so it sinks in... Clinton never balanced the budget. This has been a myth floating around since 2000 when they ALMOST balanced the budget. I think they came within $200 million but they still ran a deficit. There was never a Clinton surplus.

Saying that Clinton balanced the budget makes you a liar. If you want to see this for yourself, here is the government's own website:
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual
The national debt for every year is listed. If you can find a year when the national debt declined under Clinton, show it to me. You can't because it's not there.

Next item... Cutting taxes does not cut revenues. Say it again... Cutting taxes does not cut revenues. One more time, just because your head is very hard... Cutting taxes does not cut revenues. Reagan massively cut taxes in 1980 and by 1988, almost doubled tax revenues.

For some reason, the government website is down or the link has been moved for tax revenue but here is the information from another reputable source:
Who Really Pays Uncle Sam's Bills?

You will see, if you look at 1980... The year Reagan came into office... tax revenues for that year were $517 billion. In 1988, the year Reagan left office, the tax revenues for that year were $909 billion. ....909 is MORE than 517.... not LESS. Therefore, the Reagan tax cuts didn't COST us money... we INCREASED tax revenues... almost doubled them.

Now... I have officially debunked two of your major myths with links and everything. For the "hat trick" we can talk about how Hillary is proposing over $5 trillion in new spending programs with absolutely no mention of how we pay for that. She hasn't said one word about cutting spending or balancing the budget. I would say this is a really, really bad area to be arguing in favor of a big government progressive. If you're honestly looking for someone to balance the budget, it's certainly NOT Hillary Clinton.

 

[Boss]

Economic growth added to revenue. And with all the spending going on you can't say the growth was because of the tax cuts. The growth was fueled by spending. Bush gave tax cuts, but put us into a recession.

Now you're being silly... of course economic growth contributed to revenue! That's the whole entire ******* point! That's why tax cuts don't result in less revenue! If we lived in a vacuum where there was no economic growth, then any dummy could reason that 28% taxation will generate less than 72% taxation. But we don't live in such a vacuum. When you cut taxes, especially at the top marginal rates, it sparks economic development which creates jobs where more people work and pay taxes, resulting in more tax revenues.

I've already explained to you why Bush's tax cuts didn't have the same effect. But it certainly wasn't his tax cuts that caused the recession. Every economist on the planet agrees that the recession was caused by a collapse in the financial and housing market... had nothing whatsoever to do with tax rates.

So you've gone from spewing lies to spewing absolute moronic nonsense. I think you're done here until you educate yourself or get some new material.

 

[Brain357]

Clinton had a balanced budget. Bush messed it up, but the numbers were there. You can't balance a budget with cutting taxes. And you sure can't balance a budget by starting a recession with tariffs.

LOL.... We can keep on going through the same thing over and over... NO... Clinton never balanced the budget. Repeat after me... Clinton never balanced the budget. One more time, just so it sinks in... Clinton never balanced the budget. This has been a myth floating around since 2000 when they ALMOST balanced the budget. I think they came within $200 million but they still ran a deficit. There was never a Clinton surplus.

Saying that Clinton balanced the budget makes you a liar. If you want to see this for yourself, here is the government's own website:
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual
The national debt for every year is listed. If you can find a year when the national debt declined under Clinton, show it to me. You can't because it's not there.

Next item... Cutting taxes does not cut revenues. Say it again... Cutting taxes does not cut revenues. One more time, just because your head is very hard... Cutting taxes does not cut revenues. Reagan massively cut taxes in 1980 and by 1988, almost doubled tax revenues.

For some reason, the government website is down or the link has been moved for tax revenue but here is the information from another reputable source:
Who Really Pays Uncle Sam's Bills?

You will see, if you look at 1980... The year Reagan came into office... tax revenues for that year were $517 billion. In 1988, the year Reagan left office, the tax revenues for that year were $909 billion. ....909 is MORE than 517.... not LESS. Therefore, the Reagan tax cuts didn't COST us money... we INCREASED tax revenues... almost doubled them.

Now... I have officially debunked two of your major myths with links and everything. For the "hat trick" we can talk about how Hillary is proposing over $5 trillion in new spending programs with absolutely no mention of how we pay for that. She hasn't said one word about cutting spending or balancing the budget. I would say this is a really, really bad area to be arguing in favor of a big government progressive. If you're honestly looking for someone to balance the budget, it's certainly NOT Hillary Clinton.

Yes you keep choosing to be wrong:
The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton
The budget was balanced.

Cutting taxes does cut revenues. See the Bush years.

Tax revenues would have been higher under Reagan without the tax cuts. The debt would have increased less.
Reaganomics - Wikipedia
According to a 2003 Treasury study, the tax cuts in the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 resulted in a significant decline in revenue relative to a baseline without the cuts, approximately $111 billion (in 1992 dollars) on average during the first four years after implementation or nearly 3% GDP annually.

 

[Brain357]

Economic growth added to revenue. And with all the spending going on you can't say the growth was because of the tax cuts. The growth was fueled by spending. Bush gave tax cuts, but put us into a recession.

Now you're being silly... of course economic growth contributed to revenue! That's the whole entire ******* point! That's why tax cuts don't result in less revenue! If we lived in a vacuum where there was no economic growth, then any dummy could reason that 28% taxation will generate less than 72% taxation. But we don't live in such a vacuum. When you cut taxes, especially at the top marginal rates, it sparks economic development which creates jobs where more people work and pay taxes, resulting in more tax revenues.

I've already explained to you why Bush's tax cuts didn't have the same effect. But it certainly wasn't his tax cuts that caused the recession. Every economist on the planet agrees that the recession was caused by a collapse in the financial and housing market... had nothing whatsoever to do with tax rates.

So you've gone from spewing lies to spewing absolute moronic nonsense. I think you're done here until you educate yourself or get some new material.

Yes but the Bush tax cuts did result in less revenue. You are really far behind in your economics. Paying down the debt is important to me. Reagan grew the debt and Trump is planning to do the same. Economists agree he would be much worse than Hillary:
Donald Trump Would Boost Debt More Than Hillary Clinton, Report Says

A new analysis estimates Hillary Clinton’s tax and spending proposals would have a relatively modest effect on the national debt, while Donald Trump’s fiscal plans would sharply boost deficits and the debt over the next decade.

 

[Boss]

Clinton had a balanced budget. Bush messed it up, but the numbers were there. You can't balance a budget with cutting taxes. And you sure can't balance a budget by starting a recession with tariffs.

LOL.... We can keep on going through the same thing over and over... NO... Clinton never balanced the budget. Repeat after me... Clinton never balanced the budget. One more time, just so it sinks in... Clinton never balanced the budget. This has been a myth floating around since 2000 when they ALMOST balanced the budget. I think they came within $200 million but they still ran a deficit. There was never a Clinton surplus.

Saying that Clinton balanced the budget makes you a liar. If you want to see this for yourself, here is the government's own website:
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual
The national debt for every year is listed. If you can find a year when the national debt declined under Clinton, show it to me. You can't because it's not there.

Next item... Cutting taxes does not cut revenues. Say it again... Cutting taxes does not cut revenues. One more time, just because your head is very hard... Cutting taxes does not cut revenues. Reagan massively cut taxes in 1980 and by 1988, almost doubled tax revenues.

For some reason, the government website is down or the link has been moved for tax revenue but here is the information from another reputable source:
Who Really Pays Uncle Sam's Bills?

You will see, if you look at 1980... The year Reagan came into office... tax revenues for that year were $517 billion. In 1988, the year Reagan left office, the tax revenues for that year were $909 billion. ....909 is MORE than 517.... not LESS. Therefore, the Reagan tax cuts didn't COST us money... we INCREASED tax revenues... almost doubled them.

Now... I have officially debunked two of your major myths with links and everything. For the "hat trick" we can talk about how Hillary is proposing over $5 trillion in new spending programs with absolutely no mention of how we pay for that. She hasn't said one word about cutting spending or balancing the budget. I would say this is a really, really bad area to be arguing in favor of a big government progressive. If you're honestly looking for someone to balance the budget, it's certainly NOT Hillary Clinton.

Yes you keep choosing to be wrong:
The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton
The budget was balanced.

Cutting taxes does cut revenues. See the Bush years.

Tax revenues would have been higher under Reagan without the tax cuts. The debt would have increased less.
Reaganomics - Wikipedia
According to a 2003 Treasury study, the tax cuts in the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 resulted in a significant decline in revenue relative to a baseline without the cuts, approximately $111 billion (in 1992 dollars) on average during the first four years after implementation or nearly 3% GDP annually.

Well I gave you the official government link to the Treasury Department which shows the national debt for every year and there is not a year where it declined over the previous year. You run to FactCheck.lies and find your hoaked-up nonsense where they factor in the massive Social Security Trust Fund... you know, the one Al Gore wanted to put in a lock box. And they source the Congressional Budget Office who isn't the official source in charge of the books.... that's the Treasury Department.

Now basically any goofball understands that you can't have a surplus if the national debt increased. If I owe $100k on Jan. 1 and on Dec. 31, I owe $200k... I did not run a surplus. ONLY in liberal La-la-land is that possible. So... Show me the year from the Treasury Dept. website, where our debt declined over the previous year under Clinton, and I will admit we had a surplus.

 

[Brain357]

Clinton had a balanced budget. Bush messed it up, but the numbers were there. You can't balance a budget with cutting taxes. And you sure can't balance a budget by starting a recession with tariffs.

LOL.... We can keep on going through the same thing over and over... NO... Clinton never balanced the budget. Repeat after me... Clinton never balanced the budget. One more time, just so it sinks in... Clinton never balanced the budget. This has been a myth floating around since 2000 when they ALMOST balanced the budget. I think they came within $200 million but they still ran a deficit. There was never a Clinton surplus.

Saying that Clinton balanced the budget makes you a liar. If you want to see this for yourself, here is the government's own website:
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual
The national debt for every year is listed. If you can find a year when the national debt declined under Clinton, show it to me. You can't because it's not there.

Next item... Cutting taxes does not cut revenues. Say it again... Cutting taxes does not cut revenues. One more time, just because your head is very hard... Cutting taxes does not cut revenues. Reagan massively cut taxes in 1980 and by 1988, almost doubled tax revenues.

For some reason, the government website is down or the link has been moved for tax revenue but here is the information from another reputable source:
Who Really Pays Uncle Sam's Bills?

You will see, if you look at 1980... The year Reagan came into office... tax revenues for that year were $517 billion. In 1988, the year Reagan left office, the tax revenues for that year were $909 billion. ....909 is MORE than 517.... not LESS. Therefore, the Reagan tax cuts didn't COST us money... we INCREASED tax revenues... almost doubled them.

Now... I have officially debunked two of your major myths with links and everything. For the "hat trick" we can talk about how Hillary is proposing over $5 trillion in new spending programs with absolutely no mention of how we pay for that. She hasn't said one word about cutting spending or balancing the budget. I would say this is a really, really bad area to be arguing in favor of a big government progressive. If you're honestly looking for someone to balance the budget, it's certainly NOT Hillary Clinton.

Yes you keep choosing to be wrong:
The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton
The budget was balanced.

Cutting taxes does cut revenues. See the Bush years.

Tax revenues would have been higher under Reagan without the tax cuts. The debt would have increased less.
Reaganomics - Wikipedia
According to a 2003 Treasury study, the tax cuts in the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 resulted in a significant decline in revenue relative to a baseline without the cuts, approximately $111 billion (in 1992 dollars) on average during the first four years after implementation or nearly 3% GDP annually.

Well I gave you the official government link to the Treasury Department which shows the national debt for every year and there is not a year where it declined over the previous year. You run to FactCheck.lies and find your hoaked-up nonsense where they factor in the massive Social Security Trust Fund... you know, the one Al Gore wanted to put in a lock box. And they source the Congressional Budget Office who isn't the official source in charge of the books.... that's the Treasury Department.

Now basically any goofball understands that you can't have a surplus if the national debt increased. If I owe $100k on Jan. 1 and on Dec. 31, I owe $200k... I did not run a surplus. ONLY in liberal La-la-land is that possible. So... Show me the year from the Treasury Dept. website, where our debt declined over the previous year under Clinton, and I will admit we had a surplus.

Yes you can run deficits early in the year and still end the year with a balanced budget. The debt would increase for the year, but you would end the year with a balanced budget. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

 

[Boss]

Economic growth added to revenue. And with all the spending going on you can't say the growth was because of the tax cuts. The growth was fueled by spending. Bush gave tax cuts, but put us into a recession.

Now you're being silly... of course economic growth contributed to revenue! That's the whole entire ******* point! That's why tax cuts don't result in less revenue! If we lived in a vacuum where there was no economic growth, then any dummy could reason that 28% taxation will generate less than 72% taxation. But we don't live in such a vacuum. When you cut taxes, especially at the top marginal rates, it sparks economic development which creates jobs where more people work and pay taxes, resulting in more tax revenues.

I've already explained to you why Bush's tax cuts didn't have the same effect. But it certainly wasn't his tax cuts that caused the recession. Every economist on the planet agrees that the recession was caused by a collapse in the financial and housing market... had nothing whatsoever to do with tax rates.

So you've gone from spewing lies to spewing absolute moronic nonsense. I think you're done here until you educate yourself or get some new material.

Yes but the Bush tax cuts did result in less revenue. You are really far behind in your economics. Paying down the debt is important to me. Reagan grew the debt and Trump is planning to do the same. Economists agree he would be much worse than Hillary:
Donald Trump Would Boost Debt More Than Hillary Clinton, Report Says

A new analysis estimates Hillary Clinton’s tax and spending proposals would have a relatively modest effect on the national debt, while Donald Trump’s fiscal plans would sharply boost deficits and the debt over the next decade.

Again, I presented you with the actual official figures from the Treasury Department. Reagan's tax cuts generated more tax revenue... but you want to skip over that and go to Bush. Then you jump back to Reagan and say he grew the debt. Yes, the debt grew under Reagan just like it has grown under every president since Andrew Jackson. It wasn't because of his tax cuts because the tax cuts increased tax revenues. Reagan had to deal with Tip O'Neil and the Democrats who controlled Congress. He couldn't balance the budget because they wouldn't hear of it. Reagan supported a Balanced Budget Amendment and a line item veto. If he had that tool, he would've balanced the budget.

Now on to Trump... I am not a fan of Trump's economic plan, I don't believe he will balance the budget or reduce the national debt. But Hillary Clinton will? Are you ******* serious? What the hell are you smoking man? Again... we have to suspend reality and believe in liberal math... somehow, she is going to give everyone free college tuition and free health care and free calzones... and free birth control... but somehow, some way, she is going to magically lower the national debt. ....And she's going to make rainbows shoot from her ass and everyone will have a unicorn!

 

[Boss]

Yes you can run deficits early in the year and still end the year with a balanced budget. The debt would increase for the year, but you would end the year with a balanced budget. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

There's the official government link.... SHOW ME!

Let's see the year where our national debt decreased over the previous year!

No,... you can't end the year with more debt than the year before and claim you have balanced the budget. If you have more debt at the end of this year than you had at the end of last year, you've run a deficit not a surplus.

 

[Brain357]

Economic growth added to revenue. And with all the spending going on you can't say the growth was because of the tax cuts. The growth was fueled by spending. Bush gave tax cuts, but put us into a recession.

Now you're being silly... of course economic growth contributed to revenue! That's the whole entire ******* point! That's why tax cuts don't result in less revenue! If we lived in a vacuum where there was no economic growth, then any dummy could reason that 28% taxation will generate less than 72% taxation. But we don't live in such a vacuum. When you cut taxes, especially at the top marginal rates, it sparks economic development which creates jobs where more people work and pay taxes, resulting in more tax revenues.

I've already explained to you why Bush's tax cuts didn't have the same effect. But it certainly wasn't his tax cuts that caused the recession. Every economist on the planet agrees that the recession was caused by a collapse in the financial and housing market... had nothing whatsoever to do with tax rates.

So you've gone from spewing lies to spewing absolute moronic nonsense. I think you're done here until you educate yourself or get some new material.

Yes but the Bush tax cuts did result in less revenue. You are really far behind in your economics. Paying down the debt is important to me. Reagan grew the debt and Trump is planning to do the same. Economists agree he would be much worse than Hillary:
Donald Trump Would Boost Debt More Than Hillary Clinton, Report Says

A new analysis estimates Hillary Clinton’s tax and spending proposals would have a relatively modest effect on the national debt, while Donald Trump’s fiscal plans would sharply boost deficits and the debt over the next decade.

Again, I presented you with the actual official figures from the Treasury Department. Reagan's tax cuts generated more tax revenue... but you want to skip over that and go to Bush. Then you jump back to Reagan and say he grew the debt. Yes, the debt grew under Reagan just like it has grown under every president since Andrew Jackson. It wasn't because of his tax cuts because the tax cuts increased tax revenues. Reagan had to deal with Tip O'Neil and the Democrats who controlled Congress. He couldn't balance the budget because they wouldn't hear of it. Reagan supported a Balanced Budget Amendment and a line item veto. If he had that tool, he would've balanced the budget.

Now on to Trump... I am not a fan of Trump's economic plan, I don't believe he will balance the budget or reduce the national debt. But Hillary Clinton will? Are you ******* serious? What the hell are you smoking man? Again... we have to suspend reality and believe in liberal math... somehow, she is going to give everyone free college tuition and free health care and free calzones... and free birth control... but somehow, some way, she is going to magically lower the national debt. ....And she's going to make rainbows shoot from her ass and everyone will have a unicorn!

Lets see, Reagan and Bush give tax breaks and the debt increases dramatically. Clinton increases taxes, the economy grows faster than either Reagan or Bush, and it leads to a balanced budget. Who is the crazy one to think it's a good idea for Trump to give tax breaks? It should be obvious what worked better.

Economists who look at the plans of both say Hillary is more fiscally responsible. What don't you get?

 

[Boss]

Paying down the debt is important to me.

Then you damn sure shouldn't be supporting a progressive Democrat!

 

[Brain357]

Yes you can run deficits early in the year and still end the year with a balanced budget. The debt would increase for the year, but you would end the year with a balanced budget. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

There's the official government link.... SHOW ME!

Let's see the year where our national debt decreased over the previous year!

No,... you can't end the year with more debt than the year before and claim you have balanced the budget. If you have more debt at the end of this year than you had at the end of last year, you've run a deficit not a surplus.

You are funny. You can have a surplus in Oct, Nov and Dec and still end up adding to the debt for the year. But at the end of the year you still have the budget balanced. It's a very simple concept.

Who did better with the debt, Reagan with his tax cuts, or Clinton with tax increases? Who had more economic growth?

 

[Brain357]

Paying down the debt is important to me.

Then you damn sure shouldn't be supporting a progressive Democrat!

I guess you missed this:

A new analysis estimates Hillary Clinton’s tax and spending proposals would have a relatively modest effect on the national debt, while Donald Trump’s fiscal plans would sharply boost deficits and the debt over the next decade.

 

[Boss]

Lets see, Reagan and Bush give tax breaks and the debt increases dramatically. Clinton increases taxes, the economy grows faster than either Reagan or Bush, and it leads to a balanced budget. Who is the crazy one to think it's a good idea for Trump to give tax breaks? It should be obvious what worked better.

Economists who look at the plans of both say Hillary is more fiscally responsible. What don't you get?

What is happening is, you're being dishonest. I'm not going to just keep repeating the same thing over and over again. I gave you the official Treasury Department link where you can go see for yourself that Clinton never ran a surplus and never balanced the budget. I also gave you the link where you can see that Reagan's tax cuts generated (almost doubled) more tax revenues.

And the economy didn't grow under Clinton until he lowered taxes after giving us the largest tax increase in history.