• 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!

November Deficit Highest on Record

Conservative said:
Didn't call you a liar but it does appear that you support forced sending of someone else's money to the govt. instead of promoting volunteering sending more of your own money. Since when did the govt. become responsible for the duties required of charities? Like all liberals when challenged you make it personal. I really don't care how much you make or send to the govt. Why do you care how much someone else makes or sends? Seems you are concerned about the 2% top income earners and don't seem to care that when taxes go up that leaves less for charities. Just a little bit of information on charities.

National Philanthropic Trust - Philanthropy Statistics
Click to expand...

You seem to ignore the basic right that I and every other American citizen has to exercise their political rights to impact the government in our system of representative democracy. Tax policy, who pays what and how much, is indeed an issue that is decided by our elected representatives in Congress and I have every right and to express myself on the subject in any discussion with others. Not only is it my right but it is right and proper to do so. And if that means advocating for higher taxes on a particular income class, that is also right and proper.
 
haymarket said:
You seem to ignore the basic right that I and every other American citizen has to exercise their political rights to impact the government in our system of representative democracy. Tax policy, who pays what and how much, is indeed an issue that is decided by our elected representatives in Congress and I have every right and to express myself on the subject in any discussion with others. Not only is it my right but it is right and proper to do so. And if that means advocating for higher taxes on a particular income class, that is also right and proper.
Click to expand...

Right, and how did the Nov. 2, 2010 elections work out for you? You certainly have that right no matter how leftwing and radical it is.
 
Conservative said:
Right, and how did the Nov. 2, 2010 elections work out for you? You certainly have that right no matter how leftwing and radical it is.
Click to expand...

What the hell does that have to do with my right to speak out on issues passed by my elected representatives in Congress?
 
May I suggest that at the time the 'Bush Tax Cuts' were passed, they were tax cuts. Now they are the tax rates, and DIMS wish to raise the tax rates. Not one word about cutting spending.
 
haymarket said:
What the hell does that have to do with my right to speak out on issues passed by my elected representatives in Congress?
Click to expand...

You have every right to speak out but the majority still rule. Problem with many in the minority is that if they disagree with the will of the people they go to the courts to have that will overturned. I have the same rights as you and speak my mind as well. I believe in free enterprise and capitalism, the principles upon which our economy was built, not wealth redistribution and class envy. This isn't a zero sum game and even you, with the right attitude, work ethic, and risk taking can be successful.
 
Shooterman said:
May I suggest that at the time the 'Bush Tax Cuts' were passed, they were tax cuts. Now they are the tax rates, and DIMS wish to raise the tax rates. Not one word about cutting spending.
Click to expand...

thus the argument about deficit reduction coming from a supposed 700 billion dollars over 10 years from the rich is bogus. Congress has never taken any additional revenue and applied it to the deficit, instead they have spent it to buy votes.
 
from Conservative

This isn't a zero sum game and even you, with the right attitude, work ethic, and risk taking can be successful.
Click to expand...

Am I suppose to now bow and thank you for this 'life changing advice'? Am I suppose to take it down to the welfare or unemployment office and spring it on my fellow deadbeats, tax cheats and criminal types?

Simply because I do not publicly puff out my chest and boast about my income,wealth, property or lifestyle like the obvious offenders here is no reason for you to assume that I am NOT successful and make accordingly condescending remarks.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
from Conservative



Am I suppose to now bow and thank you for this 'life changing advice'? Am I suppose to take it down to the welfare or unemployment office and spring it on my fellow deadbeats, tax cheats and criminal types?
Click to expand...

Actually you could save time and just go to Congress and spend time with the Democrat caucus. You can take my advice or not, that is what makes this country great. I gave it, it was free and thus worth the cost of giving it to you.
 
haymarket said:
from Conservative



Am I suppose to now bow and thank you for this 'life changing advice'? Am I suppose to take it down to the welfare or unemployment office and spring it on my fellow deadbeats, tax cheats and criminal types?

Simply because I do not publicly puff out my chest and boast about my income,wealth, property or lifestyle like the obvious offenders here is no reason for you to assume that I am NOT successful and make accordingly condescending remarks.
Click to expand...

What I have noticed is that you always ignore the data provided and the source of that data. Instead you want to make this personal so as to divert attention from the sources of information. There is only one ideology that doesn't care how much you make or pay in taxes, the conservative Ideology of which I support. I don't care how much you have or pay in taxes so stop whining about what others pay.
 
Conservative said:
What I have noticed is that you always ignore the data provided and the source of that data. Instead you want to make this personal so as to divert attention from the sources of information. There is only one ideology that doesn't care how much you make or pay in taxes, the conservative Ideology of which I support. I don't care how much you have or pay in taxes so stop whining about what others pay.
Click to expand...

I am sorry, but I do not understand what you are referring to when you mention these sources of data.

What you call "whining" is what others would call participating in the national debate about our national laws and government.
 
Conservative said:
Actually you could save time and just go to Congress and spend time with the Democrat caucus. You can take my advice or not, that is what makes this country great. I gave it, it was free and thus worth the cost of giving it to you.
Click to expand...

You really are oblivious to this it would seem. And now you suggest that the members of the Congress who happen to be democrats are also not successful and need your advice?

again sir...Simply because I do not publicly puff out my chest and boast about my income,wealth, property or lifestyle like the obvious offenders here is no reason for you to assume that I am NOT successful and make accordingly condescending remarks.
 
haymarket said:
I am sorry, but I do not understand what you are referring to when you mention these sources of data.

What you call "whining" is what others would call participating in the national debate about our national laws and government.
Click to expand...

Data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Treasury Dept showing that govt. revenue and jobs increased after the JFK, Reagan, and GW Bush tax rate cuts. Or the U.S. Treasury site that shows the line items for the Federal Budget funded by income taxes which do not fund police, fire departments, or teachers. Those sites!

You are losing the debate about the role of the govt. as evidenced by the "shellacking" liberalism took on Nov. 2
 
Conservative said:
Data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Treasury Dept showing that govt. revenue and jobs increased after the JFK, Reagan, and GW Bush tax rate cuts. Or the U.S. Treasury site that shows the line items for the Federal Budget funded by income taxes which do not fund police, fire departments, or teachers. Those sites!

You are losing the debate about the role of the govt. as evidenced by the "shellacking" liberalism took on Nov. 2
Click to expand...

i am sorry but I did not realize we were debating the tax cuts of bygone eras. I was under the impression that this was about today. That is what the opening post in this thread is directed to at any rate.
 
haymarket said:
i am sorry but I did not realize we were debating the tax cuts of bygone eras. I was under the impression that this was about today. That is what the opening post in this thread is directed to at any rate.
Click to expand...

So you have no answer for facts.
 
haymarket said:
i am sorry but I did not realize we were debating the tax cuts of bygone eras. I was under the impression that this was about today. That is what the opening post in this thread is directed to at any rate.
Click to expand...

History shows that tax cuts raised govt. revenue and created jobs, why won't that happen today? How do you explain that happening and what is your solution to cutting the highest deficit on record? Think raising the taxes on the top 2% will do that and where in history has the govt. ever applied added revenue to the deficits?
 
Conservative said:
History shows that tax cuts raised govt. revenue and created jobs, why won't that happen today? How do you explain that happening and what is your solution to cutting the highest deficit on record? Think raising the taxes on the top 2% will do that and where in history has the govt. ever applied added revenue to the deficits?
Click to expand...

What jobs were created by the Bush tax cuts of this past decade? if your claim is right, we should have full employment after a decade of cutting taxes. However, you and I both know that is not the case.
 
haymarket said:
What jobs were created by the Bush tax cuts of this past decade?
Click to expand...

That is what the BLS is there for, from 2001-2007 8.5 million of them. You probably would learn a thing or to with a little research, BLS is a great non partisan site.
 
Conservative said:
That is what the BLS is there for, from 2001-2007 8.5 million of them. You probably would learn a thing or to with a little research, BLS is a great non partisan site.
Click to expand...

If you present your evidence I will be happy to look at it.
 
haymarket said:
If you present your evidence I will be happy to look at it.
Click to expand...

Teach a person to fish and they can feed themselves for a lifetime, give a man a fish and they get one meal. Learn to do the research and you will stop being a liberal.
 
Conservative said:
Teach a person to fish and they can feed themselves for a lifetime, give a man a fish and they get one meal. Learn to do the research and you will stop being a liberal.
Click to expand...

I have done the research and it tells me the direct opposite you are claiming.

So i extend to you the opportunity to present your case that the Bush tax cuts created jobs. Please present your evidence and i will be happy to look at it. Assuming, of course, that you have the evidence to present.

I will be out for a while so take your time.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
I have done the research and it tells me the direct opposite you are claiming.

So i extend to you the opportunity to present your case that the Bush tax cuts created jobs. Please present your evidence and i will be happy to look at it. Assuming, of course, that you have the evidence to present.

I will be out for a while so take your time.
Click to expand...

Then site your sources which you never have done. Bureau of Labor Statistics is non partisan and seems to be quoted by liberals when it serves their purpose thus it is not being quoted now, wonder why?

From the BLS, Employment by month since 1980

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1980 99879 99995 99713 99233 98945 98682 98796 98824 99077 99317 99545 99634
1981 99955 100191 100571 101056 101048 100298 100693 100689 100064 100378 100207 99645
1982 99692 99762 99672 99576 100116 99543 99493 99633 99504 99215 99112 99032
1983 99161 99089 99179 99560 99642 100633 101208 101608 102016 102039 102729 102996
1984 103201 103824 103967 104336 105193 105591 105435 105163 105490 105638 105972 106223
1985 106302 106555 106989 106936 106932 106505 106807 107095 107657 107847 108007 108216
1986 108887 108480 108837 108952 109089 109576 109810 110015 110085 110273 110475 110728
1987 110953 111257 111408 111794 112434 112246 112634 113057 112909 113282 113505 113793
1988 114016 114227 114037 114650 114292 114927 115060 115282 115356 115638 116100 116104
1989 116708 116776 117022 117097 117099 117418 117472 117655 117354 117581 117912 117830
1990 119081 119059 119203 118852 119151 118983 118810 118802 118524 118536 118306 118241
1991 117940 117755 117652 118109 117440 117639 117568 117484 117928 117800 117770 117466
1992 117978 117753 118144 118426 118375 118419 118713 118826 118720 118628 118876 118997
1993 119075 119275 119542 119474 120115 120290 120467 120856 120554 120823 121169 121464
1994 121966 122086 121930 122290 122864 122634 122706 123342 123687 124112 124516 124721
1995 124663 124928 124955 124945 124421 124522 124816 124852 125133 125388 125188 125088
1996 125125 125639 125862 125994 126244 126602 126947 127172 127536 127890 127771 127860
1997 128298 128298 128891 129143 129464 129412 129822 130010 130019 130179 130653 130679
1998 130726 130807 130814 131209 131325 131244 131329 131390 131986 131999 132280 132602
1999 133027 132856 132947 132955 133311 133378 133414 133591 133707 133993 134309 134523
2000 136559 136598 136701 137270 136630 136940 136531 136662 136893 137088 137322 137614
2001 137778 137612 137783 137299 137092 136873 137071 136241 136846 136392 136238 136047
2002 135701 136438 136177 136126 136539 136415 136413 136705 137302 137008 136521 136426
2003 137417 137482 137434 137633 137544 137790 137474 137549 137609 137984 138424 138411
2004 138472 138542 138453 138680 138852 139174 139556 139573 139487 139732 140231 140125
2005 140245 140385 140654 141254 141609 141714 142026 142434 142401 142548 142499 142752
2006 143142 143444 143765 143794 144108 144370 144229 144631 144797 145292 145477 145914
2007 146032 146043 146368 145686 145952 146079 145926 145685 146193 145885 146483 146173
2008 146421 146165 146173 146306 146023 145768 145515 145187 145021 144677 143907 143188
2009 142221 141687 140854 140902 140438 140038 139817 139433 138768 138242 138381 137792
2010 138333 138641 138905 139455 139420 139119 138960 139250 139391 139061 138888
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
the lost decade after the Bush tax cuts

The lost decade for the economy - washingtonpost.com
Click to expand...

thanks but I prefer the non partisan sites that provide the actual data. Bush inherited a recession from Clinton, had 9/11 which hurt the economy, then the financial bubble burst with the Democrats in control of Congress and yet allowing people to keep more of their own money which still benefits the working today added 4.5 trillion to GDP and a net job creation of 6.5 million jobs. In two years Obama has added trillions to the debt and 4 million more unemployed for a net 4 million job loss.

Now you can keep diverting to the Bush years but do so at the expense of your own credibility. It doesn't even matter now because Obama is in office and is the only President in U.S. history to have trillion dollar deficits and on his way towards his third. As the thread topic states Bush was no where to be found with the November deficit, the highest on record or the 4 million jobs lost since Obama signed the stimulus. Seems that the statue of limitation never runs out on those that want to blame Bush. That is what irresponsible people do, always find someone else to blame.
 
If the data presented in those two articles is wrong- feel free to point it out and we will discuss it.


The fact is simple and undeniable: Higher tax rates under Clinton helped give us prosperity, 22 million jobs and handed off a surplus to the next president. Lower tax rates under Bush have given us a lost decade of misery, lost jobs, lost income and set the stage for continuation when handed to the new president.

You stated that the Bush cuts produced jobs.
from your post #65
History shows that tax cuts raised govt. revenue and created jobs, why won't that happen today?
Click to expand...

Sorry - did not work out that way. I can understand your frustration with the historical record on the Bush years. You have my sympathies. But it is what it is.

Thanks George Bush. You were handed a championship team and turned them into losers in record time.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
If the data presented in those two articles is wrong- feel free to point it out and we will discuss it.


The fact is simple and undeniable: Higher tax rates under Clinton helped give us prosperity, 22 million jobs and handed off a surplus to the next president. Lower tax rates under Bush have given us a lost decade of misery, lost jobs, lost income and set the stage for continuation when handed to the new president.

You stated that the Bush cuts produced jobs.
from your post #65


Sorry - did not work out that way. I can understand your frustration with the historical record on the Bush years. You have my sympathies. But it is what it is.

Thanks George Bush. You were handed a championship team and turned them into losers in record time.
Click to expand...

One article reports percentage change and the other reports actual dollars. I am sure you understand the difference. Do you spent the percentages or the real dollars. GDP growth was 4.5 trillion from Dec. 2000 to Dec. 2008 and job growth was 6.5 million net by the end of his term and 8.5 million at the end of 2007. The jobs suffered in 2008 and continue to suffer today. Bush didn't spend trillions of dollars to generate a 4 million job loss and create a 150 billion deficit in November.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom