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

[Billy000]

Just giving you the facts, along with the source for those facts.

The fact that you choose to ignore those facts because they disrupt your chosen narrative only i(further) llustrates your mindless, partisan bigotry.

The -only- reason we have a deficit is that we choose to spend more than we take in. Period.

Even if you were right, it means nothing.

It means you are wrong.
And there's no question I am right.

How about you look at the actual graph ?

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

 

[M14 Shooter]

Even if you were right, it means nothing.

It means you are wrong.
And there's no question I am right.

How about you look at the actual graph ?

I looked at the actual data, which I then cited. It disproves your claim.

Further, regardles of the data, the -only- reason we have a deficit is that we choose to spend more than we take in. Period.

 

[Billy000]

It means you are wrong.
And there's no question I am right.

How about you look at the actual graph ?

I looked at the actual data, which I then cited. It disproves your claim.

Further, regardles of the data, the -only- reason we have a deficit is that we choose to spend more than we take in. Period.

You can keep denying our revenue problem but it won't go away. Less revenue means more debt. Period.

 

[M14 Shooter]

How about you look at the actual graph ?

I looked at the actual data, which I then cited. It disproves your claim.

Further, regardles of the data, the -only- reason we have a deficit is that we choose to spend more than we take in. Period.

You can keep denying our revenue problem but it won't go away. Less revenue means more debt. Period.

I've proven your claim regarding there being a revenue problem to be false.

The -only- reason we have a deficit is that we choose to spend more than we take in.
No way to soundly argue otherwise - though you will continue to try.

 

[Billy000]

I looked at the actual data, which I then cited. It disproves your claim.

Further, regardles of the data, the -only- reason we have a deficit is that we choose to spend more than we take in. Period.

You can keep denying our revenue problem but it won't go away. Less revenue means more debt. Period.

I've proven your claim regarding there being a revenue problem to be false.

The -only- reason we have a deficit is that we choose to spend more than we take in.
No way to soundly argue otherwise - though you will continue to try.

What exactly did you prove?

 

[M14 Shooter]

You can keep denying our revenue problem but it won't go away. Less revenue means more debt. Period.

I've proven your claim regarding there being a revenue problem to be false.

The -only- reason we have a deficit is that we choose to spend more than we take in.
No way to soundly argue otherwise - though you will continue to try.

What exactly did you prove?

I disproved your cliam of "way too low " revenue and your claim that said "way too low" revenue is to blame for the deficits.

1: Revenue isn't "way too low "
2: Even if it is, defecits can ONLY be cause by choosing to spend more than we have.

The -only- reason we have a deficit is that we choose to spend more than we take in.
No way to soundly argue otherwise.

Thus, you are proven wrong.

 

[Billy000]

I've proven your claim regarding there being a revenue problem to be false.

The -only- reason we have a deficit is that we choose to spend more than we take in.
No way to soundly argue otherwise - though you will continue to try.

What exactly did you prove?

I disproved your cliam of "way too low " revenue and your claim that said "way too low" revenue is to blame for the deficits.

1: Revenue isn't "way too low "
2: Even if it is, defecits can ONLY be cause by choosing to spend more than we have.

The -only- reason we have a deficit is that we choose to spend more than we take in.
No way to soundly argue otherwise.

Thus, you are proven wrong.

No it is way too low. You haven't proven that wrong. Why you think you have is way beyond me. This isn't even me saying this. Economists are. Your knowledge next to economists is complete dick and you know it.

 

[Andylusion]

How about you look at the actual graph ?

I looked at the actual data, which I then cited. It disproves your claim.

Further, regardles of the data, the -only- reason we have a deficit is that we choose to spend more than we take in. Period.

You can keep denying our revenue problem but it won't go away. Less revenue means more debt. Period.

This is absolute stupidity.

Michael Jackson, earned over a billion dollars in his life time. His final tour, ranked in over $100 Million. Yet, at his death he was $500 millions in debt.

The loss of income, wasn't the problem. His out of control spending was the problem.

Back in 2011, I earned a whooping $12,000 for the entire year. Lots of bad mistakes on my part. But.... I actually paid off debt during that year. How? Real simple. I spent less than I made. You cut your spending below what you make, no matter how much or little you make, and there will be no debt.

But all of this is irrelevant to the conversation, because right now our government is collecting more money than at any time in the history of this country. The amount of tax revenue this year, will be over $3 Trillion dollars.

Let me put that in perspective. Out of 196 countries in the world, there are only THREE countries on the face of this planet, with a TOTAL GDP larger than how much we collect in taxes. Not how much they collect in taxes... the entire Gross Domestic Product of the whole country, larger than how much we collect in taxes. Namely China, Japan, and Germany.

Of those three countries... China collected $1.6 Trillion in taxes. Japan collect $437 Billion in taxes. Germany collected $783 Billion in taxes.

Let me boil that down.... The US government is collecting more money in taxes, than the total tax revenue of the next three largest economies on this planet... COMBINED.

And you want to tell me that the problem causing our debt, is a lack of tax revenue?

Let me spell that out for you.....

YOU ARE FULL OF CRAP.

Clear? Any questions? I hope that was not ambiguous.

 

[Billy000]

I looked at the actual data, which I then cited. It disproves your claim.

Further, regardles of the data, the -only- reason we have a deficit is that we choose to spend more than we take in. Period.

You can keep denying our revenue problem but it won't go away. Less revenue means more debt. Period.

This is absolute stupidity.

Michael Jackson, earned over a billion dollars in his life time. His final tour, ranked in over $100 Million. Yet, at his death he was $500 millions in debt.

The loss of income, wasn't the problem. His out of control spending was the problem.

Back in 2011, I earned a whooping $12,000 for the entire year. Lots of bad mistakes on my part. But.... I actually paid off debt during that year. How? Real simple. I spent less than I made. You cut your spending below what you make, no matter how much or little you make, and there will be no debt.

But all of this is irrelevant to the conversation, because right now our government is collecting more money than at any time in the history of this country. The amount of tax revenue this year, will be over $3 Trillion dollars.

Let me put that in perspective. Out of 196 countries in the world, there are only THREE countries on the face of this planet, with a TOTAL GDP larger than how much we collect in taxes. Not how much they collect in taxes... the entire Gross Domestic Product of the whole country, larger than how much we collect in taxes. Namely China, Japan, and Germany.

Of those three countries... China collected $1.6 Trillion in taxes. Japan collect $437 Billion in taxes. Germany collected $783 Billion in taxes.

Let me boil that down.... The US government is collecting more money in taxes, than the total tax revenue of the next three largest economies on this planet... COMBINED.

And you want to tell me that the problem causing our debt, is a lack of tax revenue?

Let me spell that out for you.....

YOU ARE FULL OF CRAP.

Clear? Any questions? I hope that was not ambiguous.

The fact that you people have no understanding of inflation and variation of economy size is just childish. 17% of GDP is too low. Your whining is not going to change that.

Believe it or not the wealthy can afford higher taxes.

 

[Andylusion]

You can keep denying our revenue problem but it won't go away. Less revenue means more debt. Period.

This is absolute stupidity.

Michael Jackson, earned over a billion dollars in his life time. His final tour, ranked in over $100 Million. Yet, at his death he was $500 millions in debt.

The loss of income, wasn't the problem. His out of control spending was the problem.

Back in 2011, I earned a whooping $12,000 for the entire year. Lots of bad mistakes on my part. But.... I actually paid off debt during that year. How? Real simple. I spent less than I made. You cut your spending below what you make, no matter how much or little you make, and there will be no debt.

But all of this is irrelevant to the conversation, because right now our government is collecting more money than at any time in the history of this country. The amount of tax revenue this year, will be over $3 Trillion dollars.

Let me put that in perspective. Out of 196 countries in the world, there are only THREE countries on the face of this planet, with a TOTAL GDP larger than how much we collect in taxes. Not how much they collect in taxes... the entire Gross Domestic Product of the whole country, larger than how much we collect in taxes. Namely China, Japan, and Germany.

Of those three countries... China collected $1.6 Trillion in taxes. Japan collect $437 Billion in taxes. Germany collected $783 Billion in taxes.

Let me boil that down.... The US government is collecting more money in taxes, than the total tax revenue of the next three largest economies on this planet... COMBINED.

And you want to tell me that the problem causing our debt, is a lack of tax revenue?

Let me spell that out for you.....

YOU ARE FULL OF CRAP.

Clear? Any questions? I hope that was not ambiguous.

The fact that you people have no understanding of inflation and variation of economy size is just childish. 17% of GDP is too low. Your whining is not going to change that.

Believe it or not the wealthy can afford higher taxes.

No, it's not too low. That's your opinion, not a fact. Your whining is not going to change that, or anything else I said.

What the wealth can afford is irrelevant to the conversation. *YOU* can afford to pay more in taxes too. Is that alone a justification to take more of your money?

The fact this is the best argument you can come up with, is just more proof that you really are just full of crap.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What exactly did you prove?

I disproved your cliam of "way too low " revenue and your claim that said "way too low" revenue is to blame for the deficits.

1: Revenue isn't "way too low "
2: Even if it is, defecits can ONLY be cause by choosing to spend more than we have.

The -only- reason we have a deficit is that we choose to spend more than we take in.
No way to soundly argue otherwise.

Thus, you are proven wrong.

No it is way too low.

Revenue as % of GDP, average, since 1944: 17.5%
Revenue as % of GDP, average, since 2001: 16.3%
Historical Tables | The White House
Table 1.2

-Prove that revenue since 2001 is "way too low".
-Prove that defecits can be caused by something other than choosing to spend more than available revenue.

Good luck with that.

 

[Billy000]

I disproved your cliam of "way too low " revenue and your claim that said "way too low" revenue is to blame for the deficits.

1: Revenue isn't "way too low "
2: Even if it is, defecits can ONLY be cause by choosing to spend more than we have.

The -only- reason we have a deficit is that we choose to spend more than we take in.
No way to soundly argue otherwise.

Thus, you are proven wrong.

No it is way too low.

Revenue as % of GDP, average, since 1944: 17.5%
Revenue as % of GDP, average, since 2001: 16.3%
Historical Tables | The White House
Table 1.2

-Prove that revenue since 2001 is "way too low".
-Prove that defecits can be caused by something other than choosing to spend more than available revenue.

Good luck with that.

I already explained it you jackass. Briefly in the 50s revenue dipped to below 14%. That brings the average down you douche bag. Your understanding of mathematics is pathetic.

Here is further proof:

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/w...nding-problem/2011/07/11/gIQAkUfZAI_blog.html

 

[M14 Shooter]

No it is way too low.

Revenue as % of GDP, average, since 1944: 17.5%
Revenue as % of GDP, average, since 2001: 16.3%
Historical Tables | The White House
Table 1.2

-Prove that revenue since 2001 is "way too low".
-Prove that defecits can be caused by something other than choosing to spend more than available revenue.

Good luck with that.

I already explained it you jackass.

I accept your concession of the point.


Run along now, junior -- adults are talking.

 

[Andylusion]

No it is way too low.

Revenue as % of GDP, average, since 1944: 17.5%
Revenue as % of GDP, average, since 2001: 16.3%
Historical Tables | The White House
Table 1.2

-Prove that revenue since 2001 is "way too low".
-Prove that defecits can be caused by something other than choosing to spend more than available revenue.

Good luck with that.

I already explained it you jackass. Briefly in the 50s revenue dipped to below 14%. That brings the average down you douche bag. Your understanding of mathematics is pathetic.

Here is further proof:

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

You don't know jack. You have been proven wrong by multiple people, multiple times each, and still can't come up with a rational response. You fail dude. Just go away. You just make yourself look even more retarded than we already know you are.