• 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:
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.
Click to expand...

By the way, you obvoiusly bought in the rhetoric about Clinton but ignored what happened in 1994 which had a greater impact. The GOP Congress repealed much of the Clinton tax increases and actually cut taxes which promoted economic growth. Keep re-writing history.
 
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...

Clinton's ability to create jobs and bring down the deficit happened because the GOP repealed his tax increases while Bush on the other hand had congress and the house ruled by the democrat's majority, this is what happened, besides Bush was not a 100% republican he was a progressive republican and loved to spend money.
 
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...

Wrong Clinton cut the military in half. There were cuts in spending that balanced the budget it did nothing for the debt.
 
ptif219 said:
Wrong Clinton cut the military in half. There were cuts in spending that balanced the budget it did nothing for the debt.
Click to expand...

History tells Haymarket a different story but as usual Haymarket tries to re-write it while ignoring actual history. All this is nothing more than a diversion from the current mess and the man Haymarket helped put into the WH. A liberal can never admit when wrong and one can only wonder why? Funny how the sites I gave Haymarket tells a different story, guess that is why it is ignored.

Something to think about

The top 1% of wage earners make 20% of all income and pay 38% of all taxes.
The top 5% of wage earners make 34.7% of all income and pay 58.7% of all taxes.
The top 10% of wage earners make 45.8% of all income and pay 69.9% of all taxes.

The bottom 50% make 12.8% of all income and pay 2.7% of all taxes.

Currently approximately 47% of all Americans pay nothing and actually get money back making their tax rate negative.

Source - IRS published figures.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
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
Click to expand...

That looks like an IBM core dump, but there are no hexidecimal numbers ABCDEF
 
pbrauer said:
How about letting ALL the Bush tax cuts to sunset?
Click to expand...

Which would result in a 50% increase in tax rate for the lowest tax bracket. Sure you don't want to think this through a little....??


.
 
pbrauer said:
That looks like an IBM core dump, but there are no hexidecimal numbers ABCDEF
Click to expand...

All you need to know is there were 138.9 million people working in November 2010 and there were 143.2 million working on Dec. 31, 2008. You do the math and let us know how many jobs Obama has lost since taking office and spending trillions? Obama has a net job loss of 4.3 million and Bush had a net job gain of 8.5 million
 
Last edited:
Cole said:
Which would result in a 50% increase in tax rate for the lowest tax bracket. Sure you don't want to think this through a little....??


.
Click to expand...

liberals are all about screwing over the poor to help their causes.
 
Obama didn't lose the jobs. Bush didn't lose the jobs. The economy lost the jobs. Stimulus has kept employment higher than it would be. Tax cuts may or may not have had an impact on investment - there is a lot of money locked up. Increasing taxes will not help, it will hurt. The end of stimulus will hurt. The end of unemployment insurance will hurt. Spend with the deficit until we start growing again. Start cutting other spending now.
 
reefedjib said:
Obama didn't lose the jobs. Bush didn't lose the jobs. The economy lost the jobs. Stimulus has kept employment higher than it would be. Tax cuts may or may not have had an impact on investment - there is a lot of money locked up. Increasing taxes will not help, it will hurt. The end of stimulus will hurt. The end of unemployment insurance will hurt. Spend with the deficit until we start growing again. Start cutting other spending now.
Click to expand...

Yep, that about sums it up. Nicely done...



.
 
Conservative said:
All you need to know is there were 138.9 million people working in November 2010 and there were 143.2 million working on Dec. 31, 2008. You do the math and let us know how many jobs Obama has lost since taking office and spending trillions? Obama has a net job loss of 4.3 million and Bush had a net job gain of 8.5 million
Click to expand...

All you need to know is that Bush had the worse track record on record. And that was before the crash.

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ
 
reefedjib said:
Obama didn't lose the jobs. Bush didn't lose the jobs. The economy lost the jobs. Stimulus has kept employment higher than it would be. Tax cuts may or may not have had an impact on investment - there is a lot of money locked up. Increasing taxes will not help, it will hurt. The end of stimulus will hurt. The end of unemployment insurance will hurt. Spend with the deficit until we start growing again. Start cutting other spending now.
Click to expand...

No one can provie that the stimulus kept employment higher than it would have been. You cannot prove a negative only what actually happened but I assure you that if you spent what Obama spent and got the results Obama got, you wouldn't have a job right now.
 
Conservative said:
No one can provie that the stimulus kept employment higher than it would have been. You cannot prove a negative only what actually happened but I assure you that if you spent what Obama spent and got the results Obama got, you wouldn't have a job right now.
Click to expand...

A large amount of money was spent and jobs were preserved and created. Without that money injected into the economy, jobs which were preserved would have been lost and new jobs would not have been created.
 
reefedjib said:
A large amount of money was spent and jobs were preserved and created. Without that money injected into the economy, jobs which were preserved would have been lost and new jobs would not have been created.
Click to expand...

So we have been told, where is the outrage over the Federal Govt. bailing out unions and "saving" jobs that are state responsibilities? There is no proof that the states couldn't have saved those jobs without Federal help. The stimulus was a waste of taxpayer dollars and the Obama supporters have been sold a bill of goods. The election on Nov. 2, 2010 proved that the majority in this country don't buy the Obama rhetoric either.
 
Conservative said:
So we have been told, where is the outrage over the Federal Govt. bailing out unions and "saving" jobs that are state responsibilities? There is no proof that the states couldn't have saved those jobs without Federal help. The stimulus was a waste of taxpayer dollars and the Obama supporters have been sold a bill of goods. The election on Nov. 2, 2010 proved that the majority in this country don't buy the Obama rhetoric either.
Click to expand...

The States have no money available because of all their unfunded liabilities and their inability to run a deficit.
 
Bill Clinton plus 22 million jobs with higher tax rates.

Bush --- with lower tax rates...... forgetaboutit.

CASE CLOSED.
 
reefedjib said:
The States have no money available because of all their unfunded liabilities and their inability to run a deficit.
Click to expand...

Again, that is what we are told but we will never know as the states weren't challenged to make the tough decisions. Unfunded mandates were made illegal during the 90's as part of the Contract with America that the Republican Congress got passed. I believe the states would have found the money by making the tough choices but with liberals there is no such thing as personal responsibility.
 
haymarket said:
Bill Clinton plus 22 million jobs with higher tax rates.

Bush --- with lower tax rates...... forgetaboutit.

CASE CLOSED.
Click to expand...

Clinton with a GOP Congress

Bush with a Democrat Congress when jobs were lost

Obama with a Democrat Congress and 4 million net jobs lost

Cased CLOSED!
 
Conservative said:
Again, that is what we are told but we will never know as the states weren't challenged to make the tough decisions. Unfunded mandates were made illegal during the 90's as part of the Contract with America that the Republican Congress got passed. I believe the states would have found the money by making the tough choices but with liberals there is no such thing as personal responsibility.
Click to expand...

You do realize that States have to pay for their pensions, for all the workers who put in 20 years, and that the costs are rising sucking budget and that those were not made illegal, don't you?
 
reefedjib said:
You do realize that States have to pay for their pensions, for all the workers who put in 20 years, and that the costs are rising sucking budget and that those were not made illegal, don't you?
Click to expand...

Yes, I do but I also know that when times get tough in the private sector cuts are made. That wasn't the purpose of the stimulus and that isn't the way it was sold.
 
Conservative said:
Yes, I do but I also know that when times get tough in the private sector cuts are made. That wasn't the purpose of the stimulus and that isn't the way it was sold.
Click to expand...

Cuts would have reduced federal and state government jobs. More unemployment. Great idea!
 
reefedjib said:
Cuts would have reduced federal and state government jobs. More unemployment. Great idea!
Click to expand...

The stimulus plan was to create jobs, not bail out unions and pay for existing state jobs. No jobs created, great job!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom