• 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!

SC allows Texas to use New Voter ID Law

Jack Hays said:
RWR's relationship with Congress was complex and I don't feel like unwrapping that this evening. I'll just say that RWR's stature does not depend on tax cuts, but on the combination of Cold War victory and the foundation for a generation of prosperity.
Click to expand...

I get that, there is little simple about politics and the interactions between Presidents and Congresses. "Control" of the House or Senate also doesn't necessarily imply that party could pass legislation that didn't meet some demands of the other side - especially back then the parties were less ideologically divided, e.g. many Southern democrats were conservatives, and many northern republicans more liberal. Now a POTUS needs 60 votes in the Senate to pass a renaming of a Post office, but even in 2010 the GOP ran on protecting Medicare from democrats wanting to take benefits from grandma. Bottom line is very few if any of the stereotypes are all that useful, which is pretty much all I was pushing back on.
 
JasperL said:
I get that, there is little simple about politics and the interactions between Presidents and Congresses. "Control" of the House or Senate also doesn't necessarily imply that party could pass legislation that didn't meet some demands of the other side - especially back then the parties were less ideologically divided, e.g. many Southern democrats were conservatives, and many northern republicans more liberal. Now a POTUS needs 60 votes in the Senate to pass a renaming of a Post office, but even in 2010 the GOP ran on protecting Medicare from democrats wanting to take benefits from grandma. Bottom line is very few if any of the stereotypes are all that useful, which is pretty much all I was pushing back on.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
 
Fenton said:
It's not random.

Clinton " balanced the budget " with a Republican House.

Who allocates money in our Government ?

And Bush was handed a Democrats House in 2006.
Click to expand...

And a Democrat Senate, both houses were controlled by the Democrats from January 2007 to January 2011
 
Conservative said:
And a Democrat Senate, both houses were controlled by the Democrats from January 2007 to January 2011
Click to expand...

And........? The financial system collapsed in 2008 and the Great Recession started in December 2007. It's not like that's a good time for budget austerity that we didn't see from the GOP in the bubble years.
 
JasperL said:
If I made a claim that democrats were fiscally conservative and tried like heck to cut spending and were foiled by the dastardly republicans, then me and those apologizing for GOP fiscal results by shifting blame to democrats would be making equivalent arguments.

Bottom line is I just get tired of the same old stuff. REAGAN cut taxes, but it was passed with a majority democrat House. But the same DEMOCRATS who get no credit for the "Reagan" tax cuts are the sole reason for big spending. Same story different verse for every era. For some reason, republicans just aren't to blame for anything bad (e.g. spending), but get credit for everything good (e.g. tax cuts). Clinton balanced the budget - REPUBLICAN HOUSE!!! Etc.

Frankly over the last 34 years, it seems to me the democrats have a more fiscally responsible approach, which is why to the extent I identify with a party, it's with the Democratic party. But obviously both parties like to spend and are hesitant to tax, but only one has pledged to their maker and Grover Norquist to NEVER raise taxes, even after they increase spending.
Click to expand...

Here is the film:

deficits-by-president.jpg
 
Yours was not complete it stopped in 2006
us-federal-debt-by-president-political-party.jpg
 
JasperL said:
And........? The financial system collapsed in 2008 and the Great Recession started in December 2007. It's not like that's a good time for budget austerity that we didn't see from the GOP in the bubble years.
Click to expand...

Got it, the GOP totally destroyed the economy all by themselves when they had total control of the Congress from 2003-2006. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd had no impact at all and did their best to prevent people for taking out loans they couldn't afford. Democrats didn't want their base to have homes thus were adamant that tighter reins be put on Freddie and Fannie but the GOP wouldn't listen.

Now isn't that the re-write of history you want to believe?
 
upsideguy said:
Here is the film:

View attachment 67175064
Click to expand...

Isn't it amazing that here we are in 2014 and you still cannot post what Obama has added to the debt? Have posted the debt many times but of course you ignored it as did all the liberals but here we go again

Reagan 1.7 trillion
GHW Bush 1.4 Trillion
GW Bush 4.9 trillion

Total 8.0 Trillion in 20 years

Clinton 1.4 trillion
Obama 7.2 trillion

Total 8.6 trillion in 14 years

U.S. Treasury Data

Keep spinning and ignoring reality.
 
Conservative said:
Isn't it amazing that here we are in 2014 and you still cannot post what Obama has added to the debt? Have posted the debt many times but of course you ignored it as did all the liberals but here we go again

Reagan 1.7 trillion
GHW Bush 1.4 Trillion
GW Bush 4.9 trillion

Total 8.0 Trillion in 20 years

Clinton 1.4 trillion
Obama 7.2 trillion

Total 8.6 trillion in 14 years

U.S. Treasury Data

Keep spinning and ignoring reality.
Click to expand...

Its amazing, you make 47,800 posts (still playing only three cards) suggesting you understand politics and economics, but don't understand it at all. Debt changes are a result of an economic infrastructure, which is often set into place well before a president takes office. The "Obama debt" is substantially (not entirely, but substantially) the results of the spending (Wars) and tax structure established under Bush.

If that statement seems contradictory to my previous post, it is to some extent. There is much more to understanding how the debt changes than to simply measure the debt when a President takes office and comparing it to when he leaves office. Politics and economics are each far more complicated than that analysis.

Keep spinning and living in your own reality.
 
Conservative said:
Got it, the GOP totally destroyed the economy all by themselves when they had total control of the Congress from 2003-2006. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd had no impact at all and did their best to prevent people for taking out loans they couldn't afford. Democrats didn't want their base to have homes thus were adamant that tighter reins be put on Freddie and Fannie but the GOP wouldn't listen.

Now isn't that the re-write of history you want to believe?
Click to expand...

You're the master of straw men. Of course I never said or implied any of that. What I responded to was a statement:

And a Democrat Senate, both houses were controlled by the Democrats from January 2007 to January 2011
Click to expand...

It's a random fact and we're left to guess at its relevance. So I responded with other facts, and tried to at least vaguely tie them into this conversation. If you think those events, the collapse of the financial system and beginning of the Great Recession, weren't relevant to the BUDGET and SPENDING in the period democrats controlled the house and senate, which is what we're talking about, then you can tell me why.

Or let's forget about that part and I'll just ask this question:

Democrats controlled the House and Senate beginning January 2007. So what? Why should I care?
 
upsideguy said:
Its amazing, you make 47,800 posts (still playing only three cards) suggesting you understand politics and economics, but don't understand it at all. Debt changes are a result of an economic infrastructure, which is often set into place well before a president takes office. The "Obama debt" is substantially (not entirely, but substantially) the results of the spending (Wars) and tax structure established under Bush.

If that statement seems contradictory to my previous post, it is to some extent. There is much more to understanding how the debt changes than to simply measure the debt when a President takes office and comparing it to when he leaves office. Politics and economics are each far more complicated than that analysis.

Keep spinning and living in your own reality.
Click to expand...

Believing that tax cuts pay for themselves is sort of a self proving demonstration of that.
 
upsideguy said:
Its amazing, you make 47,800 posts (still playing only three cards) suggesting you understand politics and economics, but don't understand it at all. Debt changes are a result of an economic infrastructure, which is often set into place well before a president takes office. The "Obama debt" is substantially (not entirely, but substantially) the results of the spending (Wars) and tax structure established under Bush.

If that statement seems contradictory to my previous post, it is to some extent. There is much more to understanding how the debt changes than to simply measure the debt when a President takes office and comparing it to when he leaves office. Politics and economics are each far more complicated than that analysis.

Keep spinning and living in your own reality.
Click to expand...

Yeah, spending versus income is complicated for Democrats, which is why we see so many of them on welfare and food stamps.
 
Grant said:
Yeah, spending versus income is complicated for Democrats, which is why we see so many of them on welfare and food stamps.
Click to expand...

LOL. Perfect example of Non sequitur!!
 
upsideguy said:
Its amazing, you make 47,800 posts (still playing only three cards) suggesting you understand politics and economics, but don't understand it at all. Debt changes are a result of an economic infrastructure, which is often set into place well before a president takes office. The "Obama debt" is substantially (not entirely, but substantially) the results of the spending (Wars) and tax structure established under Bush.

If that statement seems contradictory to my previous post, it is to some extent. There is much more to understanding how the debt changes than to simply measure the debt when a President takes office and comparing it to when he leaves office. Politics and economics are each far more complicated than that analysis.

Keep spinning and living in your own reality.
Click to expand...

Well thank you very much for that incredible analysis. Do you really think we pay debt service on the debt? didn't you post that Democrat Presidents have less debt as a percentage than Republicans and now you want to make this bs claim. We do not pay debt service on the percentage change but rather the debt. Do you still not understand that? Do you really think that taking the debt from 900 billion to 2.6 trillion(Reagan) is worse than taking the debt from 10.6 trillion to 17.8 trillion(Obama)?

Apparently what you also don't understand is that debt comes from deficits and deficits are yearly? You blame Bush for the wars when the costs of those wars are included in the deficits for the year in which they were generated. Please educate yourself and stop buying the liberal rhetoric.


You are the one spinning, I didn't post that colorful chart that you did, a chart that is irrelevant as debt service matters not percentage change.
 
JasperL said:
You're the master of straw men. Of course I never said or implied any of that. What I responded to was a statement:



It's a random fact and we're left to guess at its relevance. So I responded with other facts, and tried to at least vaguely tie them into this conversation. If you think those events, the collapse of the financial system and beginning of the Great Recession, weren't relevant to the BUDGET and SPENDING in the period democrats controlled the house and senate, which is what we're talking about, then you can tell me why.

Or let's forget about that part and I'll just ask this question:

Democrats controlled the House and Senate beginning January 2007. So what? Why should I care?
Click to expand...

Of course you didn't but apparently you also don't understand sarcasm for that seems to be what you believe. As for why you should care who controls the House and Senate, basic civics. Policies and spending begin in the Congress. Democrats could have put into place financial reform but didn't, rather they refused Bush initiatives.

Why should you care? Because you look foolish buying the leftwing spin.
 
JasperL said:
Believing that tax cuts pay for themselves is sort of a self proving demonstration of that.
Click to expand...

Still waiting for you to prove why you keeping more of what you earn is an expense to anyone since the JFK, Reagan, and Bush tax cuts increased FEDERAL INCOME TAX REVENUE which is what all three cut.

My, my has liberalism been successful making good people believe that the govt. allowing you to keep more of what you earn is an expense. Didn't basic accounting tell you that you only pay for expenses?
 
Conservative said:
Still waiting for you to prove why you keeping more of what you earn is an expense to anyone since the JFK, Reagan, and Bush tax cuts increased FEDERAL INCOME TAX REVENUE which is what all three cut.

My, my has liberalism been successful making good people believe that the govt. allowing you to keep more of what you earn is an expense. Didn't basic accounting tell you that you only pay for expenses?
Click to expand...

You do remember, don't you, that the Reagan tax cuts came with elimination of a lot of tax deductions as well?

Perhaps that might, just might be a part of the reason government revenues increased?
 
Alot of those years of growth after the Carter disaster was in that RWR gave us a reason to believe in ourselves again.

Unlike today where you get from libs, we are no better than anyone else, and how we are the problem in the world....

What is it about this counyry liberals don't like? Is it guilt?
 
Dittohead not! said:
You do remember, don't you, that the Reagan tax cuts came with elimination of a lot of tax deductions as well?

Perhaps that might, just might be a part of the reason government revenues increased?
Click to expand...

17 million jobs created, doubling of GDP added how much revenue to FIT??
 
Conservative said:
Still waiting for you to prove why you keeping more of what you earn is an expense to anyone since the JFK, Reagan, and Bush tax cuts increased FEDERAL INCOME TAX REVENUE which is what all three cut.

My, my has liberalism been successful making good people believe that the govt. allowing you to keep more of what you earn is an expense. Didn't basic accounting tell you that you only pay for expenses?
Click to expand...

You keep repeating the same point over and over. I respond, you ignore it, repeat same point. Rinse and repeat. I think I'll stop the cycle here, except to note that

1) I responded to that exact point in the post above, and
2) accounting and math says tax cuts reduce tax revenue, and so, if you cut taxes (which I'm all for) you have to cut spending, or increase deficits. What serious people do not do is pretend that you can cut taxes and increase spending because tax cuts raise revenue. Only lemmings believe in magic tax cuts that pay for themselves. There is no free lunch. The GOP believes there is a free lunch when it comes to taxes. They should be embarrassed to peddle that nonsense.
 
JasperL said:
OK, if tax cuts boost revenue, then tax increases must cause a drop in revenue. Based on your objective analysis, why did tax revenues increase two and a half times faster under Clinton, after tax rate increases, than under Reagan?

More jobs were created in the Clinton era than the Reagan era.
GDP grew about 33% in both 8 year periods.
Under Reagan, real tax revenues increased by 20%, or less than GDP growth.
Under Clinton, real tax revenues increased by 47%, or well in excess of GDP growth.
Based on that, it would surprise no one that Reagan cut tax rates, and Clinton raised rates.

And to pay for the ACA, should Congress have just passed another couple rounds of TAX CUTS?

Finally, the idea that tax cuts pay for themselves is rejected by conservative economists - men who worked for Reagan, W. and others, who want lower taxes and smaller government. You should let them know about the evidence they are missing.
Click to expand...

Again, the Treasury date disagrees with you but then again you don't want to use actual dollars only inflation adjusted dollars and that isn't how our country operates. Rather sad that you don't seem to understand exactly what happened during the Reagan term or even the Clinton term. 1994 was a rejection of Clinton economic policies and the tax cut act of 1997 refutes your claims of tax hikes

Look, if you want to send more money into the govt. just do it and stop complaining about others wanting to keep more of their or the benefits generated by that revenue
 
Dittohead not! said:
You do remember, don't you, that the Reagan tax cuts came with elimination of a lot of tax deductions as well?

Perhaps that might, just might be a part of the reason government revenues increased?
Click to expand...

That, and inflation, and population growth, and normal economic growth. Inflation is the big one that's ignored. Second is the assumption that all economic growth is as a result of tax cuts, so if the economy grew by 3%, even though it's grown by 2-3% for decades, and grew by those rates when tax rates topped out at 92%, the "conservative" analysis assumes it's all a result of the tax cuts. It's the kind of economic analysis that wouldn't get a passing grade in Econ 201. I'm sure I'm telling you nothing you don't know, but just wanted to get it on the record.
 
JasperL said:
You keep repeating the same point over and over. I respond, you ignore it, repeat same point. Rinse and repeat. I think I'll stop the cycle here, except to note that

1) I responded to that exact point in the post above, and
2) accounting and math says tax cuts reduce tax revenue, and so, if you cut taxes (which I'm all for) you have to cut spending, or increase deficits. What serious people do not do is pretend that you can cut taxes and increase spending because tax cuts raise revenue. Only lemmings believe in magic tax cuts that pay for themselves. There is no free lunch. The GOP believes there is a free lunch when it comes to taxes. They should be embarrassed to peddle that nonsense.
Click to expand...

Accounting and math ignore human behavior which is what liberals like you always do. You want more money to go to the govt. then send it in. Put your money where your mouth is.

What serious people understand is that just because you cut taxes there is nothing that says you have to increase spending. Politicians do it to get votes and keep their jobs. The two aren't synonymous
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom