• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Breaking: Agreement has been reached on raising the debt limit....

Re: Obama: We have a deal

A lot of spending is nondiscretionary, i.e., you can't simply choose not to spend that money.
False. Every dollar is voluntarily spent; at any time, any and all spending can be reduced.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Here we go again, as I pointed out to you, conservative economists don't believe tax cuts pay for themselves, so its not just a liberal thingy. Fact is that President Clinton handed President Bush a budget surplus. We know appropriations that were approved after the budget cycle are not part of the budget, so these are not reflected in the surplus. So even though Clinton had a budget surplus, the debt still grew some, but the debt was becoming manageable. The in comes Bush with his "starve the beast" tax cuts. That's when the debt became unmanageable.

national debt = previous national debt + current years deficit + plus appropriations.

Tax cuts since they aren't an expense have to pay for nothing however tax cuts helped you pay your mortgage
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Tax cuts since they aren't an expense have to pay for nothing however tax cuts helped you pay your mortgage
Did this post address my post?:roll:
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Did this post address my post?:roll:

Yes, I believe I did since it is claimed that tax cuts have to pay for themselves. Since tax cuts aren't a line item expense there is nothing to pay for. You are claiming that tax revenue has to pay for all the spending regardless of how much that spending is. I rightly told you that tax cuts benefited and all tax payers and that means less of that so called liberal help is needed
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Without the cuts we would have higher unemployment and thus people paying less in taxes. Tax cuts put more money into the hands of the consumer and that makes it easier for economic growth and higher tax revenue. You have no way of knowing what the revenue would have been without the tax cuts but we do know what happened with the tax cuts so tell me how growing revenue from 2.002 trillion to 2.951 trillion can happen with tax cuts? This is FIT not total taxes either as corporate taxes and exise taxes also grew

It's true that general tax cuts do not reduce revenue 1:1. As you say, there is a stimulative effect. But it has been studied many times and even die-hard supply siders no longer claim that tax cuts don't reduce revenue. The official estimate when the Bush tax cuts were passed was that they would reduce revenue by $1.35 trillion. That is probably pretty accurate.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Bush with his "starve the beast" tax cuts. That's when the debt became unmanageable.
According to claims here by those opposed to them, the Bush tax cuts added $1.2T to the debt - over 10 years.
-That's- what's made the debt unmamagable?
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

This is ONLY true if you choose to not reduce spending.
Reducing revenue cannot, by itself, cause a deficit

"by itself" would imply "without matching reductions in spending". So yeah, "by itself" it could.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

False. Every dollar is voluntarily spent; at any time, any and all spending can be reduced.

That is only true in the most literal sense. In a practical sense, it is not true. We cannot simply choose to stop paying interest on the debt, or stop paying the military, or stop making social security and medicare payments.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Here we go again, as I pointed out to you, conservative economists don't believe tax cuts pay for themselves, so its not just a liberal thingy. Fact is that President Clinton handed President Bush a budget surplus. We know appropriations that were approved after the budget cycle are not part of the budget, so these are not reflected in the surplus. So even though Clinton had a budget surplus, the debt still grew some, but the debt was becoming manageable. The in comes Bush with his "starve the beast" tax cuts. That's when the debt became unmanageable.

national debt = previous national debt + current years deficit + plus appropriations.
The Bush deficits:

FY2002: 420,772,553,397
FY2003: 554,995,097,146
FY2004: 595,821,633,587
FY2005: 553,656,965,393
FY2006: 574,264,237,492
FY2007: 500,679,473,047
FY2008: 1,017,071,524,650
FY2009: 1,885,104,106,599

Debt to the Penny

Any questions?
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama: We have a deal

It's true that general tax cuts do not reduce revenue 1:1. As you say, there is a stimulative effect. But it has been studied many times and even die-hard supply siders no longer claim that tax cuts don't reduce revenue. The official estimate when the Bush tax cuts were passed was that they would reduce revenue by $1.35 trillion. That is probably pretty accurate.

Yet the treasury numbers say you and others are wrong. Tax cuts are indeed stimulative and make economic growth easier. Liberals and many economists never understood human behavior nor do they understand as I posted how govt. revenue grew. There was no cut in revenue and only projections on what the revenue would have been. Those projections are just as good as all the other projections these days which are never right. Why do you have such a problem keeping more of what you earn? That is the bottomline, people have to stop believing politician or economist rhetoric and think.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

It's really not that bad.

Yes, it is. People just don't want to see it. How do I know? I watch the value of the dollar. I also observe how other countries are currently getting rid of the dollar in favor of other currencies. Also, I observe how the dollar will eventually be replaced as the international trade standard. ( Dollar should be replaced as international standard, U.N. report says - CNN.com ) When this happens, the US will not be able to borrow vast amounts of money from China and other countries. Default or not, it means trouble for us.

This is a 100% GOP-manufactured crisis.

Bipartisan nonsense.

We need reasonable entitlement reforms, military cuts, and we need to go back to historically average tax rates. Problem solved.

No. Problem not solved. Anything and everything done at this point will only hold off the inevitable collapse. I stand behind that 100%.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

The Bush deficits:

FY2002: 420,772,553,397
FY2003: 554,995,097,146
FY2004: 595,821,633,587
FY2005: 553,656,965,393
FY2006: 574,264,237,492
FY2007: 500,679,473,047
FY2008: 1,017,071,524,650
FY2009: 1,885,104,106,599

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Any questions?

Yep, how did the Obama stimulus, Afghanistan surge supplemental, use and support of TARP, along with the other Obama supplementals in 2009 affect that 2009 deficit? Here we go again, you got your ass kicked on the other thread so now you want it done here. Amazing what a diehard supporter you are and are now part ofthe 40% that support Obama today.

it really doesn't matter what Clinton did, what Bush did because this is the Obama economy and the results speak for themselves.

Obama record, 15.1 million officially unemployed TODAY 2 1/2 years later, 16.2% total unemployment or underemployment over 24 million TODAY, 4 trillion added to the debt as of the end of fiscal year 2011, and a rising misery index(7.83 to 12.67).

Then there is the .4% and 1.3% GDP growth in fiscal year 2011
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

That is only true in the most literal sense. In a practical sense, it is not true. We cannot simply choose to stop paying interest on the debt, or stop paying the military, or stop making social security and medicare payments.

I already gave you the debt service, cost of military, cost of SS/Medicare, and cost of Veterans benefits on a monthly basis but apparently you chose not to pay any attention. There is enough money to pay those obligations
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

"by itself" would imply "without matching reductions in spending". So yeah, "by itself" it could.
No.... by itself, it cannot; you must also make the choice to not also reduce spending.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

I already gave you the debt service, cost of military, cost of SS/Medicare, and cost of Veterans benefits on a monthly basis but apparently you chose not to pay any attention. There is enough money to pay those obligations

You provided some spending numbers; you have not provided revenue numbers.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Yes, I believe I did since it is claimed that tax cuts have to pay for themselves. Since tax cuts aren't a line item expense there is nothing to pay for. You are claiming that tax revenue has to pay for all the spending regardless of how much that spending is. I rightly told you that tax cuts benefited and all tax payers and that means less of that so called liberal help is needed
Semantics, meh. Those conservative economists say only about 30% of the lost revenue is recouped from tax cuts.
To keep the debt in balance, revenues must equal spending.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

No.... by itself, it cannot; you must also make the choice to not also reduce spending.

In the same way that jumping off a building will not by itself kill you. You have to also make the choice to not wear and use a parachute?
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

The Bush deficits:

FY2002: 420,772,553,397
FY2003: 554,995,097,146
FY2004: 595,821,633,587
FY2005: 553,656,965,393
FY2006: 574,264,237,492
FY2007: 500,679,473,047
FY2008: 1,017,071,524,650
FY2009: 1,885,104,106,599

Debt to the Penny

Any questions?

Yep, how did the Obama stimulus, Afghanistan surge supplemental, use and support of TARP, along with the other Obama supplementals in 2009 affect that 2009 deficit?
We've been over this, how many times now?
$200B of Obama's stimulus was applied to FY2009.

What you're calling the "Afghanistan surge supplemental" was for all military support in Iraq and Afghanistan and was used to support two military fronts which Bush owns.

According to you, Obama spent $60B of TARP funds in FY2009.

Bush is responsible for the other $1.6+ trillion.

you got your ass kicked on the other thread ...

MSN-Emoticon-laughing-127.gif
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

You provided some spending numbers; you have not provided revenue numbers.

Revenue numbers in 2010

Receipt 2010

Individual Income tax 898.5
Corporate Taxes 191.4

Total 1089.9

SS/Unemploy/Other 864.8

Excise Taxes 66.9


2021.6
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

We've been over this, how many times now?
$200B of Obama's stimulus was applied to FY2009.

What you're calling the "Afghanistan surge supplemental" was for all military support in Iraq and Afghanistan and was used to support two military fronts which Bush owns.

According to you, Obama spent $60B of TARP funds in FY2009.

Bush is responsible for the other $1.6+ trillion.



MSN-Emoticon-laughing-127.gif

You surely paid no attention to 2009 at all as you are probably too busy putting together your talking points. Facts always confuse a liberal. How does it feel to be among the declining number supporting Obama, 40% approval ratings?
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

That is only true in the most literal sense.
It is true, period.
Every single dollar spend is subject to revision, every single benefit represented by non-discretionary spending can be reduced or eliminated.
SocSec, Medicare - spending all entitlement programs can be cut.

or stop paying the military
This is covered by discretionary spending.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

In the same way that jumping off a building will not by itself kill you. You have to also make the choice to not wear and use a parachute?
Sigh.
When you have $X, you can only run a deficit if you choose to spend >$X.
This is true even when X goes down from one year to another.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

You surely paid no attention to 2009 at all as you are probably too busy putting together your talking points.
treasury.gov is a talking point, is it?

Facts always confuse a liberal.
Spits the Conservative who claimed all of the following numbers that the CBO added to their FY2009 budget forecast revision:

$700B
$500B
$461B
$180B
$398B
$180B

Which one have you settled on?

How does it feel to be among the declining number supporting Obama, 40% approval ratings?
Cries a Bush 19% JAR supporter. :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom