• 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!

GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

TurtleDude said:
sure he is-his health care scheme raises taxes. he is raising the social security ceiling as well

but tell me-if a GOP congress votes to extend the "tax breaks" (or repeal of the clinton tax hikes) do you think Obama would sign that bill or veto it.
Click to expand...
I have no idea, I'm not a mind reader. Ask an Ouija board, you could get a better answer from it than me. :roll:
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

ITs a question that didn't need an answer

of course obama would veto a bill extending tax relief to the source of 70% of the Federal income tax

class warfare is his main stock in trade
 
Conservative said:
I suggest calling the U.S. Treasury Dept. and tell them that their own numbers are wrong. Let me know how that works out. Debt service is applied on the yearly debt,not the monthly debt and every year that debt service is up because the debt is up. That is how the budget process works. A reduction in debt one month doesn't a year make. the official numbers are what I posted and what the interest expense is based upon.

As has been posted there was no pay down of the debt because there was no yearly budget surplus. Even Bush had months when there was a surplus but that is the way expenses were paid.
Click to expand...
If there was no surplus (and I'm not arguing there was), why did Bush use the Clinton surplus as an argument for his tax cuts?
 
pbrauer said:
If there was no surplus (and I'm not arguing there was), why did Bush use the Clinton surplus as an argument for his tax cuts?
Click to expand...

It was a projected surplus not an actual surplus, then there was 9/11 and the recession. I don't remember what Bush said nor do I care. I seem to understand tax cuts more than any politician anyway. It isn't their money first, never was and never will be. I do know how more take home pay affects consumer spending. Why anyone would support higher taxes on anyone just shows how brainwashed some people are. Liberal politicians love having those people to manipulate.
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

TurtleDude said:
ITs a question that didn't need an answer

of course obama would veto a bill extending tax relief to the source of 70% of the Federal income tax

class warfare is his main stock in trade
Click to expand...

If you believe that crapola then I feel sorry for you. Even before the Bush tax cuts the rich were doing very well for themselves. Your are being duped in to believing the rich are being overtaxed, it simply isn't the case on and individual level.
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

pbrauer said:
If you believe that crapola then I feel sorry for you. Even before the Bush tax cuts the rich were doing very well for themselves. Your are being duped in to believing the rich are being overtaxed, it simply isn't the case on and individual level.
Click to expand...

The question remains, why do you care how much tax the rich pay?
 
Conservative said:
It was a projected surplus not an actual surplus, then there was 9/11 and the recession. I don't remember what Bush said nor do I care. I seem to understand tax cuts more than any politician anyway. It isn't their money first, never was and never will be. I do know how more take home pay affects consumer spending. Why anyone would support higher taxes on anyone just shows how brainwashed some people are. Liberal politicians love having those people to manipulate.
Click to expand...
Yada, yada, yada. The Pot calling the Kettle black.
 
pbrauer said:
Yada, yada, yada. The Pot calling the Kettle black.
Click to expand...

Look, if you can't refute the numbers or the information posted, just say so. It is a sign of maturity to admit when wrong. Why not be the first liberal in this forum that I have seen to do so?
 
Conservative said:
I suggest calling the U.S. Treasury Dept. and tell them that their own numbers are wrong. Let me know how that works out. Debt service is applied on the yearly debt,not the monthly debt and every year that debt service is up because the debt is up. That is how the budget process works. A reduction in debt one month doesn't a year make. the official numbers are what I posted and what the interest expense is based upon.

As has been posted there was no pay down of the debt because there was no yearly budget surplus. Even Bush had months when there was a surplus but that is the way expenses were paid.
Click to expand...


Nah, you call and tell them that treasury direct (one of your links ) that they are posting wrong data. While you at it tell them that that the President of the United States is wrong as well, for telling CNN “that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.”

September 27, 2000
Web posted at: 4:51 p.m. EDT (2051 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.
 
donc said:
Nah, you call and tell them that treasury direct (one of your links ) that they are posting wrong data. While you at it tell them that that the President of the United States is wrong as well, for telling CNN “that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.”

September 27, 2000
Web posted at: 4:51 p.m. EDT (2051 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.
Click to expand...

It isn't like Clinton hasn't lied before. By the way do you believe it is appropriate to use the SS surplus to even show a lower deficit when the reality is that money should go back to pay the IOU's. Tell me why even your site doesn't show that kind of a surplus?

You seem to believe what you want to believe. I posted the Treasury numbers and even your numbers don't show that kind of surplus yet you wanto to continue to believe Clinton?
 
Last edited:
I believe that to set our fiscal books in order, Americans must pay more. If Congress wants to lower spending, great. Until then, pay up!
 
Conservative said:
It isn't like Clinton hasn't lied before. By the way do you believe it is appropriate to use the SS surplus to even show a lower deficit when the reality is that money should go back to pay the IOU's. Tell me why even your site doesn't show that kind of a surplus?

You seem to believe what you want to believe. I posted the Treasury numbers and even your numbers don't show that kind of surplus yet you wanto to continue to believe Clinton?
Click to expand...

That looks like it world be a pretty good thread. Why don’t you start one with that topic?
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

Conservative said:
The question remains, why do you care how much tax the rich pay?
Click to expand...
Why do you care, that I care? I makes no difference what I think. According to you I am just some dumb-assed-stupid-liberal want to soak the rich for evey penny they have.

Causes of the French Revolution
 
Chappy said:
I believe that to set our fiscal books in order, Americans must pay more. If Congress wants to lower spending, great. Until then, pay up!
Click to expand...

Why is Americans have to pay more instead of American politicians spending less?
 
donc said:
That looks like it world be a pretty good thread. Why don’t you start one with that topic?
Click to expand...

Actually why don't you answer the question, your numbers don't show that kind of a surplus and the actual official Treasury numbers show a deficit yet you buy and post what Clinton says?
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

pbrauer said:
Why do you care, that I care? I makes no difference what I think. According to you I am just some dumb-assed-stupid-liberal want to soak the rich for evey penny they have.

Causes of the French Revolution
Click to expand...

Oh, don't be so hard on yourself. The first step to a cure though is admitting you have a problem. I keep waiting for you to answer the question, why do you care how much the rich pay in taxes? Also noticed you didn't respond to the article I posted showing that 47% of the people don't pay any taxes yet no outrage on your part?
 
why don't you give me the link to the page that you got your numbers from?
 
donc said:
why don't you give me the link to the page that you got your numbers from?
Click to expand...

GO to the U.S. Treasury site and follow the link but here is exactly what happened and I wonder why liberals continue to buy the lies and why it is ok to steal from the SS fund

Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intragovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intragovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security.

Looking at the makeup of the national debt and the claimed surpluses for the last 4 Clinton fiscal years, we have the following table:
Fiscal
Year End
Date Claimed
Surplus Public
Debt Intra-gov
Holdings Total National
Debt
FY1997 09/30/1997 $3.789667T $1.623478T $5.413146T
FY1998 09/30/1998 $69.2B $3.733864T $55.8B $1.792328T $168.9B $5.526193T $113B

FY1999 09/30/1999 $122.7B $3.636104T $97.8B $2.020166T $227.8B $5.656270T $130.1B
FY2000 09/29/2000 $230.0B $3.405303T $230.8B $2.268874T $248.7B $5.674178T $17.9B
FY2001 09/28/2001 $3.339310T $66.0B $2.468153T $199.3B $5.807463T $133.3B


Notice that while the public debt went down in each of those four years, the intragovernmental holdings went up each year by a far greater amount--and, in turn, the total national debt (which is public debt + intragovernmental holdings) went up. Therein lies the discrepancy.

When it is claimed that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt--notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the decrease in the public debt for those years. But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intragovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security).
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

pbrauer said:
If you believe that crapola then I feel sorry for you. Even before the Bush tax cuts the rich were doing very well for themselves. Your are being duped in to believing the rich are being overtaxed, it simply isn't the case on and individual level.
Click to expand...

If you don't believe Obama appeals to class warfare you are ignorant.

I don't know how you define rich and maybe you refer to someone like Bill Gates or the Waltons

I refer to those who are going to bear the brunt of the Obama-Dem-CLinton tax hikes and that is people making 200k to 2 mllion a year. They are the ones who are -in most cases-going to have to make lifestyle changes if all these tax hikes take place.

many of those people are going to see taxes go up 15-25% and if you are mainly getting your income from investments-your taxes could well double.
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

Conservative said:
Oh, don't be so hard on yourself. The first step to a cure though is admitting you have a problem. I keep waiting for you to answer the question, why do you care how much the rich pay in taxes? Also noticed you didn't respond to the article I posted showing that 47% of the people don't pay any taxes yet no outrage on your part?
Click to expand...

the dems bank on a large number of non tax payers who lap up the dem mantra that only the rich should have to pay more taxes

why would anyone who doesn't pay taxes care if government spending is running amok or that others are going to have to see huge increases in their tax bills given that many of those 47% are the main recipients of most of the dem spending schemes
 
It doesn't matter what the Republicans want or don't want. The Democrats set the agenda in both houses.

ricksfolly
 
ricksfolly said:
It doesn't matter what the Republicans want or don't want. The Democrats set the agenda in both houses.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

As they did from January 2007 to the present, a simple fact that seems to be ignored. GW Bush couldn't do a thing without Congressional support.
 
Conservative said:
GO to the U.S. Treasury site and follow the link but here is exactly what happened and I wonder why liberals continue to buy the lies and why it is ok to steal from the SS fund

Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intragovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intragovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security.

Looking at the makeup of the national debt and the claimed surpluses for the last 4 Clinton fiscal years, we have the following table:
Fiscal
Year End
Date Claimed
Surplus Public
Debt Intra-gov
Holdings Total National
Debt
FY1997 09/30/1997 $3.789667T $1.623478T $5.413146T
FY1998 09/30/1998 $69.2B $3.733864T $55.8B $1.792328T $168.9B $5.526193T $113B

FY1999 09/30/1999 $122.7B $3.636104T $97.8B $2.020166T $227.8B $5.656270T $130.1B
FY2000 09/29/2000 $230.0B $3.405303T $230.8B $2.268874T $248.7B $5.674178T $17.9B
FY2001 09/28/2001 $3.339310T $66.0B $2.468153T $199.3B $5.807463T $133.3B


Notice that while the public debt went down in each of those four years, the intragovernmental holdings went up each year by a far greater amount--and, in turn, the total national debt (which is public debt + intragovernmental holdings) went up. Therein lies the discrepancy.

When it is claimed that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt--notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the decrease in the public debt for those years. But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intragovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security).
Click to expand...

WTF ...just give the friggin link. I like rummaging around in closets, looking under beds. Been known to look in the medicine cabinets while in the crapper. Just give me the link to the page where you got the data. :2wave:
 
donc said:
WTF ...just give the friggin link. I like rummaging around in closets, looking under beds. Been known to look in the medicine cabinets while in the crapper. Just give me the link to the page where you got the data. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Do your own research, your link will provide you with enough information to prove that Clinton lied again. Apparently like all liberals you ignore that the National Debt is comprised of Public Debt and intergovt. holdings. Clinton paid down the public debt by using SS revenue from intergovt. holdings raising that debt so the combined is more each year and thus no pay down of the debt.

Even your information refutes Clinton's statement. Let's see if you can figure out yet that Clinton and the Democrats have made a fool out of you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom