Why republicans should stop whining about the debt that has accumulated under Obama

[edthecynic]

Nobody is denying Bush spent too much. But to suggest that the nearly $5.6 trillion of additional debt piled on since the end of FY2009 is the fault of past presidents is beyond ridiculous.

The additional debt is not ALL the fault of previous presidents and congresses. But when THEY committed the U.S. to financial obligations, they bear some responsibility for later administrations and congresses honoring those commitments.

For example - could Obama just immediately turn off the faucet on Iraq or Afghanistan?.

Setting aside the fact that the cost of those wars are PITTANCE compared to the overall budget for the DOD (about 20% of the federal budget)...not to mention the FAR higher amount spent on entitlements, the answer is "yes". As the commander-in-chief of the military, Obama has the power to 'turn off the faucet' on Iraq and Afghanistan. But as we know, he INCREASED the number of troops in Afghanistan quite dramatically. So let's not suggest the cost of those wars are all on Bush, because we know that's not the case.

I think he's clear on what we would have had to spend if he had elected to withdraw as quickly as possible. His decision NOT to do that - puts him and that congress on the hook for what we've spent in those places above and beyond that quick withdrawal level.

Just MHO

Again, a drop in the bucket:

For example, the the FY2001-FY2013, all direct spending on the Afghan war reached $641.7 billion, of which $198.2 billion – or over 30% – will be spent in FY2012 and FY2013.

http://csis.org/files/publication/120515_US_Spending_Afghan_War_SIGAR.pdf

The DOD ANNUAL budget? Well over $500 Billion.

http://[url=http://www.washingtonpo...?s staggering defense budget, in charts[/url]America?s staggering defense budget, in charts

The problem with your rationalization is there is more than just "direct" spending, although the additional spending is "directly" related to the wars. Specifically the long term spending on the nearly 51,000 injured vets from both wars! When you add in estimates for that you are over $2 trillion.

 

[edthecynic]

Right...and let's just overlook the fact that the budget for Bush's last fiscal year (2009), which was and approved by Congress on June 8, 2008 was a FAR CRY from the budget that was signed into effect by Obama on March 11, 2009, nearly five and a half months into the fiscal year.

My how you overlook those pesky little facts.

Nobody is denying Bush spent too much. But to suggest that the nearly $5.6 trillion of additional debt piled on since the end of FY2009 is the fault of past presidents is beyond ridiculous.

Obama and the big government ***** in Congress, which includes both Ds and Rs are responsible for this monumental mess. Anyone with a modicum of common sense understands that.

Your bias is overwhelming.

How can interest on the debt run up by past GOP presidents NOT be the fault of those past GOP presidents???

Because Congress approves spending and last I checked, ever budget passed (when they bothered to pass a budget) was done so with both Dem and Republican support.

That's why.

And what makes you think that the spending on policies enacted by past presidents ends the day they leave office??? Talk about being beyond ridiculous!!!

Get thee a book on how government works. Spending is enacted by Congress, no presidents. And Congress most certainly does have the power to NOT spend on policies enacted in the past...but they don't do that, do they?

Your overwhelming bias...and ignorance...is showing.

And yet the Right only blames Obama for the congressional spending. Funny how that works!

 

[edthecynic]

Right...and let's just overlook the fact that the budget for Bush's last fiscal year (2009), which was and approved by Congress on June 8, 2008 was a FAR CRY from the budget that was signed into effect by Obama on March 11, 2009, nearly five and a half months into the fiscal year.

My how you overlook those pesky little facts.

Nobody is denying Bush spent too much. But to suggest that the nearly $5.6 trillion of additional debt piled on since the end of FY2009 is the fault of past presidents is beyond ridiculous.

Obama and the big government ***** in Congress, which includes both Ds and Rs are responsible for this monumental mess. Anyone with a modicum of common sense understands that.

Your bias is overwhelming.

How can interest on the debt run up by past GOP presidents NOT be the fault of those past GOP presidents??? And what makes you think that the spending on policies enacted by past presidents ends the day they leave office??? Talk about being beyond ridiculous!!!

you are correct.

BUT, now please pay attention.

debt when obama took office 10T
debt today 17T
debt when obama leaves office over 20T

obama will have added more to the debt than all previous presidents COMBINED.

Those are the facts, its not rhetoric, its real numbers.

you can blame bush, reagan or washington------but your hero obama has added more to the debt than all of them combined.

Repeating that debunked bullshit does NOT make it any less bullshit!

 

[Brain357]

Right...and let's just overlook the fact that the budget for Bush's last fiscal year (2009), which was and approved by Congress on June 8, 2008 was a FAR CRY from the budget that was signed into effect by Obama on March 11, 2009, nearly five and a half months into the fiscal year.

My how you overlook those pesky little facts.

Nobody is denying Bush spent too much. But to suggest that the nearly $5.6 trillion of additional debt piled on since the end of FY2009 is the fault of past presidents is beyond ridiculous.

Obama and the big government ***** in Congress, which includes both Ds and Rs are responsible for this monumental mess. Anyone with a modicum of common sense understands that.

Your bias is overwhelming.

How can interest on the debt run up by past GOP presidents NOT be the fault of those past GOP presidents??? And what makes you think that the spending on policies enacted by past presidents ends the day they leave office??? Talk about being beyond ridiculous!!!

you are correct.

BUT, now please pay attention.

debt when obama took office 10T
debt today 17T
debt when obama leaves office over 20T

obama will have added more to the debt than all previous presidents COMBINED.

Those are the facts, its not rhetoric, its real numbers.

you can blame bush, reagan or washington------but your hero obama has added more to the debt than all of them combined.

I think we need Ross Perot back.

 

[eflatminor]

How can interest on the debt run up by past GOP presidents NOT be the fault of those past GOP presidents???

Because Congress approves spending and last I checked, ever budget passed (when they bothered to pass a budget) was done so with both Dem and Republican support.

That's why.

And what makes you think that the spending on policies enacted by past presidents ends the day they leave office??? Talk about being beyond ridiculous!!!

Get thee a book on how government works. Spending is enacted by Congress, no presidents. And Congress most certainly does have the power to NOT spend on policies enacted in the past...but they don't do that, do they?

Your overwhelming bias...and ignorance...is showing.

And yet the Right only blames Obama for the congressional spending. Funny how that works!

And the Left only blames Bush. Not at all funny.

As a Libertarian, I understand the truth: Both parties are to blame for this mountain of debt.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Nobody is denying Bush spent too much. But to suggest that the nearly $5.6 trillion of additional debt piled on since the end of FY2009 is the fault of past presidents is beyond ridiculous.

The additional debt is not ALL the fault of previous presidents and congresses. But when THEY committed the U.S. to financial obligations, they bear some responsibility for later administrations and congresses honoring those commitments.

For example - could Obama just immediately turn off the faucet on Iraq or Afghanistan?.

Setting aside the fact that the cost of those wars are PITTANCE compared to the overall budget for the DOD (about 20% of the federal budget)...not to mention the FAR higher amount spent on entitlements, the answer is "yes". As the commander-in-chief of the military, Obama has the power to 'turn off the faucet' on Iraq and Afghanistan. But as we know, he INCREASED the number of troops in Afghanistan quite dramatically. So let's not suggest the cost of those wars are all on Bush, because we know that's not the case.

I think he's clear on what we would have had to spend if he had elected to withdraw as quickly as possible. His decision NOT to do that - puts him and that congress on the hook for what we've spent in those places above and beyond that quick withdrawal level.

Just MHO

Again, a drop in the bucket:

For example, the the FY2001-FY2013, all direct spending on the Afghan war reached $641.7 billion, of which $198.2 billion – or over 30% – will be spent in FY2012 and FY2013.

http://csis.org/files/publication/120515_US_Spending_Afghan_War_SIGAR.pdf

The DOD ANNUAL budget? Well over $500 Billion.

[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/07/everything-chuck-hagel-needs-to-know-about-the-defense-budget-in-charts/]America?s staggering defense budget, in charts[/URL]

And that was just one example.
It all adds up.

So my point (imho) stands unchallenged.

Obama IS responsible for what he is responsible for and he is not completely responsible for spending that previous administrations and previous congresses committed to.

I know that it takes work to actually dig through and get the whole picture. And it takes real honesty to hold the appropriate people responsible for their actions.

I hold Obama responsible for the overspending that is really on him. And that is significant. But I also hold previous administrations and previous congresses responsible for their overspending as well.

I know it doesn't fit neatly into a hyper-partisan rant - sorry.

 

[The T]

Here is a no bullshit assessment about what exactly the debt under Obama composed of. As you can see Obama's biggest expenses were his TAX CUTS and defense spending.



US Debt by President

talk about biased bullshit reporting------------

lets cut the crap. the debt when obama took over was around 10 trillion, today it is around 17 trillion, when he leaves it will be over 20 trillion.

forget the % increase bullshit, lets talk about actual dollars added to the debt

obama will have added more to the the debt than all previous presidents COMBINED.

as to your charts--------figures don't lie, but liars figure.

And I suppose a republican would be doing any better? Like they have a great record on spending? Remember Bush getting that balanced budget?

DROP the partisan horseshit. It shouldn't be happening REGARDLESS. Brain 357? Nah...DRAIN 357 is more YOUR speed.

IDIOT.

 

[Billy000]

Nice attempt at diversion. I never said "I know", but there are PLENTY of economists that would agree there is no definitive correlation between tax rate changes and tax revenues. Even a cursory review of economic history makes that crystal clear.

And by the way, I have an advanced degree in Economics. You?



An overwhelmingly biased opinion has been presented. Big frickin' difference. Deal with it.

I think you're full of shit. Any economist will tell you that both Bush's and Obama's tax cuts have greatly contributed to our national debt.

Oh, well, if you say so...

Let me explain it to you as though you were a child: How do you know that if tax rates were higher that the economy wouldn't be in even worse shape than it is, resulting in even LESS tax revenue?

Answer: You don't. No one does. That's the point.

But hey, if you really are worried about the debt, how about this novel idea: How about we live within our means? You know, spend what we take in in tax revenue? Hey, now there's an idea!

Further, do you realize that despite those evil tax cuts, we're collecting more in tax revenue than we ever have, right?

$2,472,542,000,000: Record Taxation Through August; Deficit Still $755B | CNS News

Despite collecting more tax revenues than ever before, we STILL run gigantic deficits. Even adjusted for Fed induced inflation, it's still the highest amount of revenue in the last 16 years with the exception of 2007 when the economy was rocking (you know, AFTER those evil tax cuts where enacted!)

But to you're fucked up way of thinking, the problem is we need higher tax rates still.

Your overwhelming bias and ignorance of economics is noted. Good luck with that.

So once again you are ignoring the issue of our national debt being contributed by tax cuts. Typical.


Actually, you are wrong about revenue being high. It is high in terms of raw dollars but inflation and the size of the economy must be taken into account.

The only accurate way to measure revenue is computing it as a percentage of our GDP. Right now that percentage is very low. It went up a little when Bush's tax cuts expired but is still quite low.

 

[chikenwing]

So once again you are ignoring the issue of our national debt being contributed by tax cuts. Typical.

Once again ignoring the SPENDING very very typical.

Which tax brackets received the largest cuts from the Bush tax act??

 

[M14 Shooter]

The additional debt is not ALL the fault of previous presidents and congresses. But when THEY committed the U.S. to financial obligations, they bear some responsibility for later administrations and congresses honoring those commitments.

For example - could Obama just immediately turn off the faucet on Iraq or Afghanistan?.

Setting aside the fact that the cost of those wars are PITTANCE compared to the overall budget for the DOD (about 20% of the federal budget)...not to mention the FAR higher amount spent on entitlements, the answer is "yes". As the commander-in-chief of the military, Obama has the power to 'turn off the faucet' on Iraq and Afghanistan. But as we know, he INCREASED the number of troops in Afghanistan quite dramatically. So let's not suggest the cost of those wars are all on Bush, because we know that's not the case.

I think he's clear on what we would have had to spend if he had elected to withdraw as quickly as possible. His decision NOT to do that - puts him and that congress on the hook for what we've spent in those places above and beyond that quick withdrawal level.

Just MHO

Again, a drop in the bucket:

For example, the the FY2001-FY2013, all direct spending on the Afghan war reached $641.7 billion, of which $198.2 billion – or over 30% – will be spent in FY2012 and FY2013.

http://csis.org/files/publication/120515_US_Spending_Afghan_War_SIGAR.pdf

The DOD ANNUAL budget? Well over $500 Billion.

[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/07/everything-chuck-hagel-needs-to-know-about-the-defense-budget-in-charts/]America?s staggering defense budget, in charts[/URL]

And that was just one example.
It all adds up.

So my point (imho) stands unchallenged.

Obama IS responsible for what he is responsible for and he is not completely responsible for spending that previous administrations and previous congresses committed to.

Almost every dollar spent by the governm,ent is voluntary; the only money that -must- be spent is the President's salary, which could be as little as $1.

So, if there was some "comittiment" for spending from a previous congress/administration that was actually spent during The Obama's term, it's because the choice was made to contnue that spending.

 

[eflatminor]

I hold Obama responsible for the overspending that is really on him. And that is significant. But I also hold previous administrations and previous congresses responsible for their overspending as well..

I agree 100%

I know it doesn't fit neatly into a hyper-partisan rant - sorry

You have some evidence of my being 'hyper-partisan'?

Didn't think so. Sorry?

 

[eflatminor]

I think you're full of shit. Any economist will tell you that both Bush's and Obama's tax cuts have greatly contributed to our national debt.

Oh, well, if you say so...

Let me explain it to you as though you were a child: How do you know that if tax rates were higher that the economy wouldn't be in even worse shape than it is, resulting in even LESS tax revenue?

Answer: You don't. No one does. That's the point.

But hey, if you really are worried about the debt, how about this novel idea: How about we live within our means? You know, spend what we take in in tax revenue? Hey, now there's an idea!

Further, do you realize that despite those evil tax cuts, we're collecting more in tax revenue than we ever have, right?

$2,472,542,000,000: Record Taxation Through August; Deficit Still $755B | CNS News

Despite collecting more tax revenues than ever before, we STILL run gigantic deficits. Even adjusted for Fed induced inflation, it's still the highest amount of revenue in the last 16 years with the exception of 2007 when the economy was rocking (you know, AFTER those evil tax cuts where enacted!)

But to you're fucked up way of thinking, the problem is we need higher tax rates still.

Your overwhelming bias and ignorance of economics is noted. Good luck with that.

So once again you are ignoring the issue of our national debt being contributed by tax cuts. Typical.

You've been debunked on that bullshit claim. Deal with it.

Actually, you are wrong about revenue being high. It is high in terms of raw dollars but inflation and the size of the economy must be taken into account.

I see you also have a reading comprehension problem. I accounted for inflation. It's highlighted above for the simpletons among us...

The only accurate way to measure revenue is computing it as a percentage of our GDP. Right now that percentage is very low. It went up a little when Bush's tax cuts expired but is still quite low.

Care to explain what that is the "only accurate way to measure revenue"?

This ought to be good!

And by the way, you are, lying. The estimated 2013 revenues is 16.7% of GDP. That is right about average. We've seen percentages ranging from 4.8% of GDP in 1934 to as high as 20.6% in 2000.

My but you're full of shit.

 

[Brain357]

talk about biased bullshit reporting------------

lets cut the crap. the debt when obama took over was around 10 trillion, today it is around 17 trillion, when he leaves it will be over 20 trillion.

forget the % increase bullshit, lets talk about actual dollars added to the debt

obama will have added more to the the debt than all previous presidents COMBINED.

as to your charts--------figures don't lie, but liars figure.

And I suppose a republican would be doing any better? Like they have a great record on spending? Remember Bush getting that balanced budget?

DROP the partisan horseshit. It shouldn't be happening REGARDLESS. Brain 357? Nah...DRAIN 357 is more YOUR speed.

IDIOT.

How is it partisan to suggest both parties suck?

 

[Billy000]

Oh, well, if you say so...

Let me explain it to you as though you were a child: How do you know that if tax rates were higher that the economy wouldn't be in even worse shape than it is, resulting in even LESS tax revenue?

Answer: You don't. No one does. That's the point.

But hey, if you really are worried about the debt, how about this novel idea: How about we live within our means? You know, spend what we take in in tax revenue? Hey, now there's an idea!

Further, do you realize that despite those evil tax cuts, we're collecting more in tax revenue than we ever have, right?

$2,472,542,000,000: Record Taxation Through August; Deficit Still $755B | CNS News

Despite collecting more tax revenues than ever before, we STILL run gigantic deficits. Even adjusted for Fed induced inflation, it's still the highest amount of revenue in the last 16 years with the exception of 2007 when the economy was rocking (you know, AFTER those evil tax cuts where enacted!)

But to you're fucked up way of thinking, the problem is we need higher tax rates still.

Your overwhelming bias and ignorance of economics is noted. Good luck with that.

So once again you are ignoring the issue of our national debt being contributed by tax cuts. Typical.

You've been debunked on that bullshit claim. Deal with it.

Actually, you are wrong about revenue being high. It is high in terms of raw dollars but inflation and the size of the economy must be taken into account.

I see you also have a reading comprehension problem. I accounted for inflation. It's highlighted above for the simpletons among us...

The only accurate way to measure revenue is computing it as a percentage of our GDP. Right now that percentage is very low. It went up a little when Bush's tax cuts expired but is still quite low.

Care to explain what that is the "only accurate way to measure revenue"?

This ought to be good!

And by the way, you are, lying. The estimated 2013 revenues is 16.7% of GDP. That is right about average. We've seen percentages ranging from 4.8% of GDP in 1934 to as high as 20.6% in 2000.

My but you're full of shit.

How are you not getting this? Inflation and economy size are crucial to take into account. In order to take them into account, revenue must be compared to the size of the economy. Measuring it in raw dollars like you cons like to do is wrong and misleading.

It was 20.6 in 2000 yes. That is where it needed to stay. Right now we have a spending and tax cutting problem. 16.7 is too low. It is definitely not the average you goon.

 

[Listening]

Oh, well, if you say so...

Let me explain it to you as though you were a child: How do you know that if tax rates were higher that the economy wouldn't be in even worse shape than it is, resulting in even LESS tax revenue?

Answer: You don't. No one does. That's the point.

But hey, if you really are worried about the debt, how about this novel idea: How about we live within our means? You know, spend what we take in in tax revenue? Hey, now there's an idea!

Further, do you realize that despite those evil tax cuts, we're collecting more in tax revenue than we ever have, right?

$2,472,542,000,000: Record Taxation Through August; Deficit Still $755B | CNS News

Despite collecting more tax revenues than ever before, we STILL run gigantic deficits. Even adjusted for Fed induced inflation, it's still the highest amount of revenue in the last 16 years with the exception of 2007 when the economy was rocking (you know, AFTER those evil tax cuts where enacted!)

But to you're fucked up way of thinking, the problem is we need higher tax rates still.

Your overwhelming bias and ignorance of economics is noted. Good luck with that.

So once again you are ignoring the issue of our national debt being contributed by tax cuts. Typical.

You've been debunked on that bullshit claim. Deal with it.

Actually, you are wrong about revenue being high. It is high in terms of raw dollars but inflation and the size of the economy must be taken into account.

I see you also have a reading comprehension problem. I accounted for inflation. It's highlighted above for the simpletons among us...

The only accurate way to measure revenue is computing it as a percentage of our GDP. Right now that percentage is very low. It went up a little when Bush's tax cuts expired but is still quite low.

Care to explain what that is the "only accurate way to measure revenue"?

This ought to be good!

And by the way, you are, lying. The estimated 2013 revenues is 16.7% of GDP. That is right about average. We've seen percentages ranging from 4.8% of GDP in 1934 to as high as 20.6% in 2000.

My but you're full of shit.

Hold onto your hat....you just asked ricochet rabbit lib to answer something. Keep your eye on the answer...it's gonna be random, change direction in a blink and wind up somewhere meaningless.

 

[eflatminor]

So once again you are ignoring the issue of our national debt being contributed by tax cuts. Typical.

You've been debunked on that bullshit claim. Deal with it.



I see you also have a reading comprehension problem. I accounted for inflation. It's highlighted above for the simpletons among us...

The only accurate way to measure revenue is computing it as a percentage of our GDP. Right now that percentage is very low. It went up a little when Bush's tax cuts expired but is still quite low.

Care to explain what that is the "only accurate way to measure revenue"?

This ought to be good!

And by the way, you are, lying. The estimated 2013 revenues is 16.7% of GDP. That is right about average. We've seen percentages ranging from 4.8% of GDP in 1934 to as high as 20.6% in 2000.

My but you're full of shit.

How are you not getting this? Inflation and economy size are crucial to take into account. In order to take them into account, revenue must be compared to the size of the economy. Measuring it in raw dollars like you cons like to do is wrong and misleading.

It was 20.6 in 2000 yes. That is where it needed to stay. Right now we have a spending and tax cutting problem. 16.7 is too low. It is definitely not the average you goon.

Thanks for demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that you truly are full of shit.

"Has" to stay at 20.6, eh? Again, because you say so? Well, I say it should stay at 4.8%...because that's were it needed to stay. Powerful argument, wouldn't you say?

But you're right, 16.7 is not the average. It's higher than average. Thanks for making my point.

 

[Billy000]

You've been debunked on that bullshit claim. Deal with it.



I see you also have a reading comprehension problem. I accounted for inflation. It's highlighted above for the simpletons among us...



Care to explain what that is the "only accurate way to measure revenue"?

This ought to be good!

And by the way, you are, lying. The estimated 2013 revenues is 16.7% of GDP. That is right about average. We've seen percentages ranging from 4.8% of GDP in 1934 to as high as 20.6% in 2000.

My but you're full of shit.

How are you not getting this? Inflation and economy size are crucial to take into account. In order to take them into account, revenue must be compared to the size of the economy. Measuring it in raw dollars like you cons like to do is wrong and misleading.

It was 20.6 in 2000 yes. That is where it needed to stay. Right now we have a spending and tax cutting problem. 16.7 is too low. It is definitely not the average you goon.

Thanks for demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that you truly are full of shit.

"Has" to stay at 20.6, eh? Again, because you say so? Well, I say it should stay at 4.8%...because that's were it needed to stay. Powerful argument, wouldn't you say?

But you're right, 16.7 is not the average. It's higher than average. Thanks for making my point.

Your ignorance on this issue is laughable. Here is ample proof revenue is way too low by historical standards .

Sorry, Folks, We Don't Just Have 'A Spending Problem' - Business Insider

We have a taxing problem, not just a spending problem - The Washington Post

 

[eflatminor]

How are you not getting this? Inflation and economy size are crucial to take into account. In order to take them into account, revenue must be compared to the size of the economy. Measuring it in raw dollars like you cons like to do is wrong and misleading.

It was 20.6 in 2000 yes. That is where it needed to stay. Right now we have a spending and tax cutting problem. 16.7 is too low. It is definitely not the average you goon.

Thanks for demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that you truly are full of shit.

"Has" to stay at 20.6, eh? Again, because you say so? Well, I say it should stay at 4.8%...because that's were it needed to stay. Powerful argument, wouldn't you say?

But you're right, 16.7 is not the average. It's higher than average. Thanks for making my point.

Your ignorance on this issue is laughable. Here is ample proof revenue is way too low by historical standards .

Sorry, Folks, We Don't Just Have 'A Spending Problem' - Business Insider

We have a taxing problem, not just a spending problem - The Washington Post

Revenue way too low, eh? Consider this: If in 2013, government lived with the spending levels we had ALL THE WAY BACK in 2003, we wouldn't need a federal income tax...nothing...zero percent.

But hey, that would IMPOSSIBLE, right?! We all remember the horrors of 2003...the dead bodies in the street! The grandmas starving to death! The rampant chaos!!!

Not enough revenue my ass.

And yes, I can post all kinds of opinion pieces that demonstrate spending is the problem, not inadequate taxation.

Spending Problem, Still | Cato Institute

GOP on Message: Revenue Not the Problem, Spending Is | Fox News

You must be the biggest nanny state suck up in history to witness the MONUMENTAL increase in government spending and claim the problem to be inadequate revenue. My God man, have you ever looked to anything other than your overlords for a solution to your own damn problems? How about you try thinking for yourself, just once? Put on your big boy shoes and realize that all this deficit spending and taxes have a significant downside, a restricting element on jobs, growth and prosperity. For once, try not looking to central planners to make your life better. Do it yourself for christsake. Watching you whine for more and more confiscation and handouts is just pathetic.

 

[TemplarKormac]

How are you not getting this? Inflation and economy size are crucial to take into account. In order to take them into account, revenue must be compared to the size of the economy. Measuring it in raw dollars like you cons like to do is wrong and misleading.

It was 20.6 in 2000 yes. That is where it needed to stay. Right now we have a spending and tax cutting problem. 16.7 is too low. It is definitely not the average you goon.

Thanks for demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that you truly are full of shit.

"Has" to stay at 20.6, eh? Again, because you say so? Well, I say it should stay at 4.8%...because that's were it needed to stay. Powerful argument, wouldn't you say?

But you're right, 16.7 is not the average. It's higher than average. Thanks for making my point.

Your ignorance on this issue is laughable. Here is ample proof revenue is way too low by historical standards .

Sorry, Folks, We Don't Just Have 'A Spending Problem' - Business Insider

We have a taxing problem, not just a spending problem - The Washington Post

One problem. If we went by historicity, then yes, we would have a taxing and revenue problem. But if you take in the value of the money we taxed in the past as compared to what we today, you would see why we have a taxing problem.

A simple explanation.

As the US prints more money, the value of the money will decrease; as such the amount we need to tax must go up to maintain adequate revenue flow.

This speaks to why we don't need to raise taxes, and why we should stop devaluing our money so much by printing so much of it. This also debunks this liberal "tax and spend" theory as well.

 

[Billy000]

Thanks for demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that you truly are full of shit.

"Has" to stay at 20.6, eh? Again, because you say so? Well, I say it should stay at 4.8%...because that's were it needed to stay. Powerful argument, wouldn't you say?

But you're right, 16.7 is not the average. It's higher than average. Thanks for making my point.

Your ignorance on this issue is laughable. Here is ample proof revenue is way too low by historical standards .

Sorry, Folks, We Don't Just Have 'A Spending Problem' - Business Insider

We have a taxing problem, not just a spending problem - The Washington Post

Revenue way too low, eh? Consider this: If in 2013, government lived with the spending levels we had ALL THE WAY BACK in 2003, we wouldn't need a federal income tax...nothing...zero percent.

But hey, that would IMPOSSIBLE, right?! We all remember the horrors of 2003...the dead bodies in the street! The grandmas starving to death! The rampant chaos!!!

Not enough revenue my ass.

And yes, I can post all kinds of opinion pieces that demonstrate spending is the problem, not inadequate taxation.

Spending Problem, Still | Cato Institute

GOP on Message: Revenue Not the Problem, Spending Is | Fox News

You must be the biggest nanny state suck up in history to witness the MONUMENTAL increase in government spending and claim the problem to be inadequate revenue. My God man, have you ever looked to anything other than your overlords for a solution to your own damn problems? How about you try thinking for yourself, just once? Put on your big boy shoes and realize that all this deficit spending and taxes have a significant downside, a restricting element on jobs, growth and prosperity. For once, try not looking to central planners to make your life better. Do it yourself for christsake. Watching you whine for more and more confiscation and handouts is just pathetic.

You are such a moron. I made it clear from the beginning we had a spending problem, but to blame our debt on over spending alone is moronic.

Here is the graph that shows revenue is way too low in comparison to the past.

Sorry, Folks, We Don't Just Have 'A Spending Problem' - Business Insider