• 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!

Census finds record gap between rich and poor

donc said:
Then show me the link that backs up your OPINION. Not just a link to a generic site but need the page number as well.
Click to expand...

I have shown you the links, given you the actual spreadsheets which you ignored. I stand by my statement and I suggest you go to bea.gov and learn a few things.
 
Gray_Fox_86 said:
This is the way the majority of the nation works and that helps explain why we are in a bad situation:



MAKE THIS STORY GO VIRAL -- You Thought California State Pensions Were Out Of Control? Wait Until You See This List From*Illinois - Home - The Daily Bail

All the meanwhile politicians have people fighting about the rich, they are giving themselves inflated pensions and salaries.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the post, quite telling and you are exactly right, this is why this country is in a complete mess. There are no pension plans in the private sector that pay these kind of pensions.
 
Conservative

I have shown you the links, given you the actual spreadsheets which you ignored.
Click to expand...

I must have overlooked the link that was with that spreadsheet;care to show me again?

I stand by my statement and I suggest you go to bea.gov and learn a few things.
Click to expand...

Then you stand by what i have proved wrong with BLS data backing me up.Have a good day. :2wave:
 
donc said:
I must have overlooked the link that was with that spreadsheet;care to show me again?



Then you stand by what i have proved wrong with BLS data backing me up.Have a good day. :2wave:
Click to expand...


I always have good days, it serves no purpose posting links that show economic growth, tax revenue, unemployment, employment to anyone whose mind is made up like yours. For some reason you continue to buy what you are told by leftwing politicians whose sole goal is to keep you dependent and you ignore anything that refutes their rhetoric.

Here is GDP Growth by Year

GDP
1980 2,788.10
1981 3,126.80
1982 3253.20
1983 3534.60
1984 3930.90
1985 4217.50
1986 4460.10
1987 4736.40
1988 5100.40
1989 5482.10
1990 5800.50
1991 5992.10
1992 6342.30
1993 6667.40
1994 7085.20
1995 7414.70
1996 7838.50
1997 8332.40
1998 8793.50
1999 9353.50
2000 9951.50
2001 10286.20
2002 10642.30
2003 11142.10
2004 11867.80
2005 12638.40
2006 13398.90
2007 14077.60
2008 14441.40
2009 14256.30


Notice Reagan and Bush economic growth and then notice Clinton economic growth when the GOP repealed much of the Clinton tax increases.

Here is the tax revenue from 2000-2008

2000 3,132
2001 3,118
2002 2,987
2003 3,043
2004 3,265
2005 3,659
2006 3,996
2007 4,197
2008 4,072

Here is the unemployment by year

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2000 5708 5858 5733 5481 5758 5651 5747 5853 5625 5534 5639 5634
2001 6023 6089 6141 6271 6226 6484 6583 7042 7142 7694 8003 8258
2002 8182 8215 8304 8599 8399 8393 8390 8304 8251 8307 8520 8640
2003 8520 8618 8588 8842 8957 9266 9011 8896 8921 8732 8576 8317
2004 8370 8167 8491 8170 8212 8286 8136 7990 7927 8061 7932 7934
2005 7784 7980 7737 7672 7651 7524 7406 7345 7553 7453 7566 7279
2006 7059 7185 7075 7122 6977 6998 7154 7097 6853 6728 6883 6784
2007 7085 6898 6725 6845 6765 6966 7113 7096 7200 7273 7284 7696
2008 7628 7435 7793 7631 8397 8560 8895 9509 9569 10172 10617 11400
2009 11919 12714 13310 13816 14518 14721 14534 14993 15159 15612 15340 15267
2010 14837 14871 15005 15260 14973 14623 14599 14860 14767 14843

Discouraged workers
2008 467 396 401 412 400 420 461 381 467 484 608 642
2009 734 731 685 740 792 793 796 758 706 808 861 929
2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185 1110 1209 1219

Unemployed + Discouraged
2008 8095 7831 8194 8043 8797 8980 9356 9890 10036 10656 11225 12042
2009 12653 13445 13995 14556 15310 15514 15330 15751 15865 16420 16201 16196
2010 15902 16075 15999 16457 16056 15830 15784 15970 15976 16062 0 0

Reagan cut taxes that went into effect in 1982

GW Bush cut tax rates and changed withholding in July 2003

Amazing how GDP Doubled during Reagan and went up 4.5 trillion during Bush. What other spreadsheet do you want?
 
Conservative said:
I always have good days, it serves no purpose posting links that show economic growth, tax revenue, unemployment, employment to anyone whose mind is made up like yours. For some reason you continue to buy what you are told by leftwing politicians whose sole goal is to keep you dependent and you ignore anything that refutes their rhetoric.

Here is GDP Growth by Year

GDP
1980 2,788.10
1981 3,126.80
1982 3253.20
1983 3534.60
1984 3930.90
1985 4217.50
1986 4460.10
1987 4736.40
1988 5100.40
1989 5482.10
1990 5800.50
1991 5992.10
1992 6342.30
1993 6667.40
1994 7085.20
1995 7414.70
1996 7838.50
1997 8332.40
1998 8793.50
1999 9353.50
2000 9951.50
2001 10286.20
2002 10642.30
2003 11142.10
2004 11867.80
2005 12638.40
2006 13398.90
2007 14077.60
2008 14441.40
2009 14256.30


Notice Reagan and Bush economic growth and then notice Clinton economic growth when the GOP repealed much of the Clinton tax increases.

Here is the tax revenue from 2000-2008

2000 3,132
2001 3,118
2002 2,987
2003 3,043
2004 3,265
2005 3,659
2006 3,996
2007 4,197
2008 4,072

Here is the unemployment by year

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2000 5708 5858 5733 5481 5758 5651 5747 5853 5625 5534 5639 5634
2001 6023 6089 6141 6271 6226 6484 6583 7042 7142 7694 8003 8258
2002 8182 8215 8304 8599 8399 8393 8390 8304 8251 8307 8520 8640
2003 8520 8618 8588 8842 8957 9266 9011 8896 8921 8732 8576 8317
2004 8370 8167 8491 8170 8212 8286 8136 7990 7927 8061 7932 7934
2005 7784 7980 7737 7672 7651 7524 7406 7345 7553 7453 7566 7279
2006 7059 7185 7075 7122 6977 6998 7154 7097 6853 6728 6883 6784
2007 7085 6898 6725 6845 6765 6966 7113 7096 7200 7273 7284 7696
2008 7628 7435 7793 7631 8397 8560 8895 9509 9569 10172 10617 11400
2009 11919 12714 13310 13816 14518 14721 14534 14993 15159 15612 15340 15267
2010 14837 14871 15005 15260 14973 14623 14599 14860 14767 14843

Discouraged workers
2008 467 396 401 412 400 420 461 381 467 484 608 642
2009 734 731 685 740 792 793 796 758 706 808 861 929
2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185 1110 1209 1219

Unemployed + Discouraged
2008 8095 7831 8194 8043 8797 8980 9356 9890 10036 10656 11225 12042
2009 12653 13445 13995 14556 15310 15514 15330 15751 15865 16420 16201 16196
2010 15902 16075 15999 16457 16056 15830 15784 15970 15976 16062 0 0

Reagan cut taxes that went into effect in 1982

GW Bush cut tax rates and changed withholding in July 2003

Amazing how GDP Doubled during Reagan and went up 4.5 trillion during Bush. What other spreadsheet do you want?
Click to expand...

Give the link to the page that came from, I kinda like seeing things in context.
 
donc said:
Give the link to the page that came from, I kinda like seeing things in context.
Click to expand...

Go to bea.gov and click on the link to GDP and then go to the BLS.gov to get the unemployment
 
Conservative said:
Go to bea.gov and click on the link to GDP and then go to the BLS.gov to get the unemployment
Click to expand...

Seeing as you haven’t provided a link to where you got your figures I can only assume that you pulled it out of the air, are possibly somewhere else. My site is a Gov site as well and the numbers that you cite don’t jibe with mine. While were on my site, check this out.


The year 2001, our country had receipts of "2,020.3" that year we had a bottom line number of 34.2 without one of these next to it-.

Comes 2002, we had receipts of ‘1,859.3” but it had one of these next to it.- preceded with this number “278”.Hhmm…don’t like the looks of them minus signs.

Whoo..doggies, these minus signs are getting serous now. Surely, unlike the “The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001” that produced the first – minus sign, the

“Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003” will not do the same. :shock:

Alas and alack, along comes the year of "2003",with these numbers “1885.1” with a –minus "422.2". How can this be? Surely we…no,no, its to frightful to be…payen someones tax-cuts with borrowed money from...a commie country..nah.:(

Sigh,”2004” rolls in with a 2013.9 draggen a big fat –426.8 behind it. This s*** cant go on…CAN IT?

"2005" brought us a “2290.1” and look what popped out of the friggin Rabbit Hole with it. A NEGATIVE 352.4- :roll:

2006……………….bizarreo.."2524.5" with a –247.2

2007………………bizarreo.."2654.7" with a –315

2008………………bizarreo.. "2503.1" with a-755.2

Sadly, what all of these numbers mean is were borrowing money from a Communist country, China, to pay the top 2% of our populations tax cuts. Here look for yourself. :(


U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis
 
donc said:
Seeing as you haven’t provided a link to where you got your figures I can only assume that you pulled it out of the air, are possibly somewhere else. My site is a Gov site as well and the numbers that you cite don’t jibe with mine. While were on my site, check this out.


The year 2001, our country had receipts of "2,020.3" that year we had a bottom line number of 34.2 without one of these next to it-.

Comes 2002, we had receipts of ‘1,859.3” but it had one of these next to it.- preceded with this number “278”.Hhmm…don’t like the looks of them minus signs.

Whoo..doggies, these minus signs are getting serous now. Surely, unlike the “The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001” that produced the first – minus sign, the

“Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003” will not do the same. :shock:

Alas and alack, along comes the year of "2003",with these numbers “1885.1” with a –minus "422.2". How can this be? Surely we…no,no, its to frightful to be…payen someones tax-cuts with borrowed money from...a commie country..nah.:(

Sigh,”2004” rolls in with a 2013.9 draggen a big fat –426.8 behind it. This s*** cant go on…CAN IT?

"2005" brought us a “2290.1” and look what popped out of the friggin Rabbit Hole with it. A NEGATIVE 352.4- :roll:

2006……………….bizarreo.."2524.5" with a –247.2

2007………………bizarreo.."2654.7" with a –315

2008………………bizarreo.. "2503.1" with a-755.2

Sadly, what all of these numbers mean is were borrowing money from a Communist country, China, to pay the top 2% of our populations tax cuts. Here look for yourself. :(


U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis
Click to expand...

You can assume whatever you want because quite frankly it doesn't matter to me. The American people get it and spoke on Tuesday night. Seems that the majority believe the numbers I posted and if you really cared you would do your own research and verify what I have provided to you. 682 State legislatures turned over to the GOP and Republicans took over the house. They did so not because of what happened during the Bush administration but instead because what Obama has done. His record speaks for itself. He couldn't have inherited what he helped create.

You don't seem to have a basic understanding of how our govt. works. Please take a civics class. We have three equal branches of govt. and Congress controls the purse strings, not the President. Debt isn't created by the President, it is created by the Congress regardless of anything you post.

President Obama took over during a recession that he did nothing to prevent. There was a banking crisis that happened in 2008. TARP was created and passed by President Bush. That is the program that saved the banks, Obama did nothing to prevent the bank failures. TARP cost 700 billion dollars. Bush spent 350 billion and left the other 350 billion for Obama. Obama spent 150 billion of that 350 billion so the total was 500 billion spent. He still has 200 billion that no one know what he has done with it, just like no one knows what he did with the repayment yet he claims he inherited a budget deficit from Bush. You and the other Obama minions bought the rhetoric but never stopped to think how President Bush created a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit from October 1, 2008 to January 21, 2009. Please answer that question. Then banks that were bailed out under TARP paid back the funds with interest. hundreds of billions of dollars were paid back in 2009. Where did that payback go? Questions that everyone should be asking. How about an answer?

Barack Obama took over passed a 800+billion stimulus plan that was for shovel ready jobs. We now find out he bailed out teacher unions and "saved" teachers' jobs. Since when are teachers' jobs shovel ready projects and since when is it the Federal Govt. job to save state jobs? Questions again but no answers from Obama supporters.

So, Donc, you can continue to live in the past,, ignore actual results of both the past and the present all of which make you look foolish. Anytime you want to discuss the Obama record let me know. Until then the American people got it, why haven't you?
 
Conservative said:
Do you work for the govt, or are you in school and don't pay any taxes at all? Only in the liberal world are tax cuts an expense to the Federal Govt. Tax rate cuts have only happened three times in modern history, JFK, Reagan, and Bush and during all three Administrations GDP Grew as did Govt. revenue.
Click to expand...

This seems to be about as meaningless statistic as I can find. I just checked the numbers for GDP and I can't find any President since Coolidge where the GDP was lower at the end of their administration than at the beginning. Didn't matter if taxes are raised or lowered. The GDP always goes up, unless there is a repeat of the Great Depression where the GDP went down for the years '29-'34.

The historical record of the taxes (I hate the term "government revenue") collected by the federal government went up every year. In fact, since 1950, there doesn't seem to be any 8 year period where the federal taxes didn't double. GDP goes up, taxes go up.

If you say that cutting taxed increases GDP and the growth in GDP makes up for the cut in taxes, that is not evident. The rated of GDP growth does not correlate with tax cuts, at least not individual tax cuts. The things that seem to have the most effect on the rate of growth are those cuts that effect capital investment. Capital accumulation in the hands of individuals is counter productive. The Reagan cuts on individual rates was accompanied by the Accelerated Cost Recovery System which rewarded companies who invested in new equipment. The Clinton tax cut (which you attribute to the GOP) was not a cut in individual rates. It did cut capital gains which, again, had an effect on capital investment. The tax cut under Clinton did not come close to matching the tax increase at the beginning of his administration. The economy grew after them too as did the federal tax.

And the Obama tax cut on individuals as a percentage of GDP was orders of magnitude larger than the Clinton tax cut on capital gains. If there is any causality that can be gained from this data it's that incenting business to make capital investments IN THE US, is the thing that does the most to improve the economy and employment.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
You don't seem to have a basic understanding of how our govt. works. Please take a civics class. We have three equal branches of govt. and Congress controls the purse strings, not the President. Debt isn't created by the President, it is created by the Congress regardless of anything you post.

President Obama took over during a recession that he did nothing to prevent. There was a banking crisis that happened in 2008. TARP was created and passed by President Bush. That is the program that saved the banks, Obama did nothing to prevent the bank failures.
Click to expand...

In one paragraph, you lay all responsibility for expenditures on Congress. In the next, you say "TARP was created and passed by Bush." It can't be both. In fact, Bush did propose EESA (TARP was Obama), and I think that it was a good thing that he did least the economy be much worse than it is. However, when TARP was voted in Congress, it was the Democrats (including a certain Senator from Il) who railed behind the President to try to save the economy (In the House Yea D-172 R-91, Nay D-91 R-63. In the Senate Yea D-39 R 34, Nay D-9 R-15). So, if EESA did save the banks, and Obama voted for it, doesn't that mean that he did something to help the banks?

Also, if Congress is the entity that controls the purse strings, and EESA saved the banks, and Congress was controlled by Democrats, and it was the Democrats who passed the measure, doesn't that mean that the Democrats in Congress saved the banks and not Bush? I think that Bush contributed but if you want to attribute it all to Congress, that's your choice.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
You can assume whatever you want because quite frankly it doesn't matter to me. The American people get it and spoke on Tuesday night. Seems that the majority believe the numbers I posted and if you really cared you would do your own research and verify what I have provided to you. 682 State legislatures turned over to the GOP and Republicans took over the house. They did so not because of what happened during the Bush administration but instead because what Obama has done. His record speaks for itself. He couldn't have inherited what he helped create.

You don't seem to have a basic understanding of how our govt. works. Please take a civics class. We have three equal branches of govt. and Congress controls the purse strings, not the President. Debt isn't created by the President, it is created by the Congress regardless of anything you post.

President Obama took over during a recession that he did nothing to prevent. There was a banking crisis that happened in 2008. TARP was created and passed by President Bush. That is the program that saved the banks, Obama did nothing to prevent the bank failures. TARP cost 700 billion dollars. Bush spent 350 billion and left the other 350 billion for Obama. Obama spent 150 billion of that 350 billion so the total was 500 billion spent. He still has 200 billion that no one know what he has done with it, just like no one knows what he did with the repayment yet he claims he inherited a budget deficit from Bush. You and the other Obama minions bought the rhetoric but never stopped to think how President Bush created a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit from October 1, 2008 to January 21, 2009. Please answer that question. Then banks that were bailed out under TARP paid back the funds with interest. hundreds of billions of dollars were paid back in 2009. Where did that payback go? Questions that everyone should be asking. How about an answer?

Barack Obama took over passed a 800+billion stimulus plan that was for shovel ready jobs. We now find out he bailed out teacher unions and "saved" teachers' jobs. Since when are teachers' jobs shovel ready projects and since when is it the Federal Govt. job to save state jobs? Questions again but no answers from Obama supporters.

So, Donc, you can continue to live in the past,, ignore actual results of both the past and the present all of which make you look foolish. Anytime you want to discuss the Obama record let me know. Until then the American people got it, why haven't you?
Click to expand...

You blather on about Tuesday’s election; blather on about Obama and the cost of TARP, bloviate that “Obama spent 150 billion of that 350 billion so the total was 500 billion spent. He still has 200 billion that no one know what he has done with it, just like no one knows what he did with the repayment yet he claims he inherited a budget deficit from Bush. “

One thing is missing on all this blathering/bloviating; guess what it is?

Why, the subject we were discussing… OF COURSE. The fact is, that I used the site that you seem to think is dead on factual, plus I even linked to where the info is, rather than point and say its over there somewhere, go find it.:roll:



I come into this 121 page thread, again, at post #1186, disputing your assertion that “The economic numbers say differently. “Which was your answer to Moot regarding the bush tax-cuts. Where I supplied a couple of bea links in support of my post.

In your rebuttal, you say
” Not sure exactly what you are looking at because not only did GDP go up after the tax cuts and an increase in GDP increases tax revenue as does the tax cuts increase the number of taxpayers. “
Click to expand...

What I was looking at was,and what I provided a link to was BEA.GOV. What I was pointing at was line 10,on the NIPA table in my BEA.GOV link. The data on the that table clearly shows that economic growth, in real GDP, goes down when taxes are cut. It also shows that not only does economic growth go down ,it shows our national debt goes up . Better skip you next civics class and spend the money on an Rosetta Stone course studying Chinese.:2wave:


The next few post you dedicated to trying to change the subject to anything but what we were discussing which culminated into this rambling post that has every talking point that happened to craw thru the ole dome while you were typing.

In post #1201 you say, “
I stand by my statement and I suggest you go to bea.gov and learn a few things.
Click to expand...
” If, as you say, you stand by your statement lets have a look at your bea.gov site and compare it to my bea.gov site, so we can see where the fault lies. Do we have a deal? :confused:
 
Last edited:
donc,

I seem to have gotten entangled in the same random walk as you. It seems that "facts" are whatever one wants them to be and if the data doesn't support the "facts" then the data is wrong. I always thought that the data needed to support the "facts" but I guess that I'm not on the right meds.

I think I'll back away and see if you make any headway at all.

Enjoy.
 
zip98053 said:
This seems to be about as meaningless statistic as I can find. I just checked the numbers for GDP and I can't find any President since Coolidge where the GDP was lower at the end of their administration than at the beginning. Didn't matter if taxes are raised or lowered. The GDP always goes up, unless there is a repeat of the Great Depression where the GDP went down for the years '29-'34.

The historical record of the taxes (I hate the term "government revenue") collected by the federal government went up every year. In fact, since 1950, there doesn't seem to be any 8 year period where the federal taxes didn't double. GDP goes up, taxes go up.

If you say that cutting taxed increases GDP and the growth in GDP makes up for the cut in taxes, that is not evident. The rated of GDP growth does not correlate with tax cuts, at least not individual tax cuts. The things that seem to have the most effect on the rate of growth are those cuts that effect capital investment. Capital accumulation in the hands of individuals is counter productive. The Reagan cuts on individual rates was accompanied by the Accelerated Cost Recovery System which rewarded companies who invested in new equipment. The Clinton tax cut (which you attribute to the GOP) was not a cut in individual rates. It did cut capital gains which, again, had an effect on capital investment. The tax cut under Clinton did not come close to matching the tax increase at the beginning of his administration. The economy grew after them too as did the federal tax.

And the Obama tax cut on individuals as a percentage of GDP was orders of magnitude larger than the Clinton tax cut on capital gains. If there is any causality that can be gained from this data it's that incenting business to make capital investments IN THE US, is the thing that does the most to improve the economy and employment.
Click to expand...

I posted the Obama tax cuts vs. the Bush tax cuts and you ignored them just like you ignored the question as to why liberals have so much passion for taking money from the American taxpayer? When I get answers to those then I will continue but to go in circles with you again and again is worthless. The American people need the money more than the American Govt.
 
zip98053 said:
donc,

I seem to have gotten entangled in the same random walk as you. It seems that "facts" are whatever one wants them to be and if the data doesn't support the "facts" then the data is wrong. I always thought that the data needed to support the "facts" but I guess that I'm not on the right meds.

I think I'll back away and see if you make any headway at all.

Enjoy.
Click to expand...
Come on in but expect to see a lot of …rabbit hole facts pop up framed as reality. :thumbs:
 
donc said:
Come on in but expect to see a lot of …rabbit hole facts pop up framed as reality. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

It is about economic reality something you seem to not understand. Let me remind you, it is the American people's money first before it goes to the American govt. The American people using their own money is what stimulates the economy, not massive debt creation by the govt. Facts seem to get lost in the liberal world of pure fantasy and social engineering.
 
Conservative said:
It is about economic reality something you seem to not understand. Let me remind you, it is the American people's money first before it goes to the American govt. The American people using their own money is what stimulates the economy, not massive debt creation by the govt. Facts seem to get lost in the liberal world of pure fantasy and social engineering.
Click to expand...


WELL…. I consider myself to be a part of the population of this great country that you are referring to as the “American People”. I have always taken pride in the fact that somehow I have ALWAYS managed to pay my bills as I go. Never have I had to go to a payday loan store (China?) to float a loan for my excessive spending. Which is, evidently the republican parties MO, every time they get in office as I pointed out in my last post. :2wave:
 
Last edited:
donc said:
WELL…. I consider myself to be a part of the population of this great country that you are referring to as the “American People”. I have always taken pride in the fact that somehow I have ALWAYS managed to pay my bills as I go. Never have I had to go to a payday loan store (China?) to float a loan for my excessive spending. Which is, evidently the republican parties MO, every time they get in office as I pointed out in my last post. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Name for me any other President in U.S. history that had trillion dollar deficits and rising unemployment after spending over 800 billion dollars in stimulus? 682 State Legislature positions, 65 Congress Representatives, and 6-8 Senators were elected on Tuesday on the GOP side, that is historic and a mass repudiation of the Obama agenda. Only those on the leftcoast and now parts of the east coast ignore what happened in flyover country and soundly rejected the class warfare card of the Democrats. Keep playing it.
 
Conservative said:
Name for me any other President in U.S. history that had trillion dollar deficits and rising unemployment after spending over 800 billion dollars in stimulus? 682 State Legislature positions, 65 Congress Representatives, and 6-8 Senators were elected on Tuesday on the GOP side, that is historic and a mass repudiation of the Obama agenda. Only those on the leftcoast and now parts of the east coast ignore what happened in flyover country and soundly rejected the class warfare card of the Democrats. Keep playing it.
Click to expand...

Why don’t you start a thread of this subject seeing as you seem to throw it in every thread your involved in.:confused:

Your saying in effect you want to compare past Presidents whole terms, of four, or eight years, with a President that has been in office…22 months? That smacks of …well, typical repug dishonesty. :2wave:
 
donc said:
Why don’t you start a thread of this subject seeing as you seem to throw it in every thread your involved in.:confused:

Your saying in effect you want to compare past Presidents whole terms, of four, or eight years, with a President that has been in office…22 months? That smacks of …well, typical repug dishonesty. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Deficits are yearly, not cumulative, suggest you learn the difference. Doesn't matter how many years a person is in office when it comes to deficits. What we seem to have here is someone who wants to divert from the reality of the results Obama has generated. Don't blame you but the people spoke on Tuesday, they get it, when will you?
 
QUOTE Conservative

Deficits are yearly, not cumulative, suggest you learn the difference. Doesn't matter how many years a person is in office when it comes to deficits.
Click to expand...


Then your saying that when the defects started popping in 2001 after the first bush tax cuts were what? Coincidence? :confused:


What we seem to have here is someone who wants to divert from the reality of the results Obama has generated. Don't blame you but the people spoke on Tuesday, they get it, when will you?
Click to expand...

Why are you desperately trying to jerk this discussion away from a subject that YOU STARTED which was…tax cuts boost the economy? :lamo
 
=donc;1059086073]Then your saying that when the defects started popping in 2001 after the first bush tax cuts were what? Coincidence? :confused:
Click to expand...


You are indeed confused, the Bush tax cuts in 2001 were rebates, just like the Obama tax cuts. They were a one time payment which like all one time payments are nothing more than a one time stimulus. Once gone they are gone. The Bush withholding cuts came in July 2003. I suggest that instead of spending so much time here that you do some studying of history.

Why are you desperately trying to jerk this discussion away from a subject that YOU STARTED which was…tax cuts boost the economy? :lamo
Click to expand...

I didn't start this thread but like all threads talking about gaps in pay and promoting class warfare they ignore the basic premise that people keeping more of their own money is better than the Federal Govt. taking more of the taxpayer money. Anyone that believes differently has been brainwashed. I don't believe anyone promoting higher taxes does their part in sending more of their own income voluntarily to the Federal Govt.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
LOL, just like the GM repayment and profit? Taking one bailout and paying for it by another bailout. Freddie and Fannie still have a huge debt being funded by the taxpayers. Apparently the NY Times missed that reality.
Click to expand...


You might try clicking the link and reading the article for once before you start your canned responses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom