Poll: Debt ceiling deal should include cuts and tax increases

Conservative · Dec 28, 2011

misterman said:
My latest post was about you, not Obama. You're ignoring that.

Keep diverting, for that is all you can do

upsideguy · Dec 28, 2011

Gill said:
Hate to break it to you, but we couldn't fix this deficit if we took every single penny from the top 1%.

Hate to break it to you, but that is not an argument against raising taxes on those that have actually prospered in the downturn. No single action will cure the problem; it will take sacrifice across the board. A tax increase on the most prosperous of Americans will contribute to deficit reduction just as cutting government programs across the board, including defense will.

Using the logic this move or that will not solve the problem by itself so we should not make such a move is a pretty silly argument.

Gill · Dec 29, 2011

upsideguy said:
Hate to break it to you, but that is not an argument against raising taxes on those that have actually prospered in the downturn. No single action will cure the problem; it will take sacrifice across the board. A tax increase on the most prosperous of Americans will contribute to deficit reduction just as cutting government programs across the board, including defense will.

Using the logic this move or that will not solve the problem by itself so we should not make such a move is a pretty silly argument.

Hate to break THIS to you, but I was replying to this comment:

Oh ****, the top 1% will have slightly less money if we raise taxes enough to fix the deficit! Oh, the horror!

So yes, the poster I was replying to stated that the deficit could be erased if we only taxed the top 1% more.

That 's what happens when you jump into a conversation without reading the context first.

By the way, do you have proof that the top 1% has prospered and have more income now than they did 5 years ago?

misterman · Dec 29, 2011

Conservative said:
Keep diverting, for that is all you can do

No, you're diverting.

I am here to tell you to stop equating ideology with truth, or honesty, or any of that other stuff. It's not. That's all that needs to be said. If the message doesn't sink in, that's your problem.

Imnukingfutz · Dec 29, 2011

treedancer said:
Then explain to me how taxes went up when Clinton raised taxes during his term. Don't give me the dotcom bubble bull****.

Because the economy was still strong enough to handle it. At the end of the Clinton years (1998 & 1999) we slipped into a recession...a minor one but one none the less. At that point, taxes should have been cut to boost the economy.

The Bush cuts were across the board and well needed...the problem was that they didnt raise taxes later in his term to control the inevitable market correction.

Where Obama is making a HUGE mistake is not doing what Reagan did and slashing taxes to jumpstart the economy....he and the Democrats believe that government spending and higher taxes will do it and that just isnt historically true.

Donc · Dec 29, 2011

Quote Imnukingfutz

Because the economy was still strong enough to handle it. At the end of the Clinton years (1998 & 1999) we slipped into a recession...a minor one but one none the less. At that point, taxes should have been cut to boost the economy.

Keep up; Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and a couple of months later the revenues started going up. I posted a graph which evidently you missed.

The Bush cuts were across the board and well needed...the problem was that they didn’t raise taxes later in his term to control the inevitable market correction.

The bush tax cuts were boneheaded because they were put into effect when we were at war.UNFUNDED. Compounding the boneheaded move was putting in place Medicare plan D (prescription drugs), which also was... UNFUNDED.Geeez...bush was left a surplus and he headed our country straight into the ditch were digging ourselves out of now.

Where Obama is making a HUGE mistake is not doing what Reagan did and slashing taxes to jumpstart the economy....

Kinda hard to slash taxes when we have a big ass deficit isn’t it? with that $ trillion dollar elephant in the room cutting taxes doesn’t increase revenue. with this big ass deficit we need to see revenue going up not down.

SSooo… it stands to reason that those that made the most dough for the last decade and got the most benefit of the bush tax-cuts should be the ones that should tote the biggest part of the load .Our current tax level is the lowest its been since 1958 and with all the loopholes/ tax breaks the CORP tax-rate is now the second lowest as share of GDP of developed countries. Let the Verizons, Boeing and General Electric cough up a few quid in taxes for a change.

upsideguy · Dec 30, 2011

Conservative said:
All I ever see from you is diversion and don't blame you for you cannot defend the facts that I have posted. The Obama results are there for all to see. Why are you ignoring them? Facts are verifiable and come from non partisan sites, not economists, CBO projections, or op ed pieces. I welcome the challenge to the facts presented.

Are there more or less employed today than when Obama took office?
Is the civilian labor force higher or lower than when Obama took office
Is the unemployment higher or lower than it was when Obama took office?
Is the misery indext higher or lower today than when Obama took office?
Has there been 4.5 trillion added to the debt since Obama took office?
Were there 1.1 million discouraged workers that weren't counted last month in the unemployment number?
Is the GDP higher or loser this year vs. last year?
Did 315,000 drop out of the labor force last month?
Are there 24 million unemployed/under employed Americans in November 2011 and is that higher or lower than when Obama took office?

Aw, so many questions and yet you and others run from the answers.

First, no one is "running from the answers"... you have been answered over and over, but you have the listening skills of Helen Keller (if I can be politically incorrect for a moment to drive home a point). You are not interested in, nor do you respect, any opinion that is contrary to your own. I suggest it is you that runs from the answers.

Conservative said:
I have posted the Obama results over and over again only to be ignored just like you are doing now. Guess it is easier diverting from those results vs. addressing them.

Yes, you have posted the same thing over and over and over and over and over (did I forget an over or two?) again. Again, what you insist are facts are just opinions. Your "facts" get diluted (or should I say deluded) when you insist on assigning "blame" to Obama for the facts. I do not deny you have an argument, but an argument is an opinion, not a fact.

Let's take one of your favorite items: the increase in the federal debt since Obama took office.

It is a fact that the debt was, according to the US Treasury, $10.6T on January 31, 2009 and $14.8T on September 30, 2011. Each are verifiable facts (Government - Welcome to the Government Section of TreasuryDirect). The change in the debt during that period can be objectively derived from those facts by calculation ($14.8 - $10.6 = $4.2)....

FACT: 1) Debt was $10.6T at 1/31/2009; 2) Debt is $14.8T at 9/30/2011; and 3) Debt increased by $4.2T between January 2009 and September 2011.
FACT: 1) Obama became President in January 2009 and Obama served continuously as President through September 2011.

Compound fact derived from logic: The Debt rose $4.2T during the first 2.7 years of the Obama Administration. Your assertion above is close to this; objective, but with a bias, suggesting the one fact is relevant to the other (there is a suggestion of correlation or even causation)

Opinion: Your continued suggestion that the $4.2T increase in debt was Obama's fault. The debt increased $3.94B on his first day in office. Was that his fault? Will the next Republican to take office be accountable for the increase in the debt on his first day, first week, first month, first budget (that he did not begin)? I don't think so. The fact is the debt increased. Who is responsible for this increase in debt is a matter of opinion.

YOUR OPINIONS:

Conservative said:
As has been posted over and over again, anyone worried about deficits cannot be an Obama supporter. Obama will amass in a little over 3 years as much debt as Bush did in 8 but your ideology will not allow you to admit or accept that. Absolutely amazing how brainwashed liberals are.

Conservative said:
What a disengenuous argument as if Republican debt is worse than Democrat debt. Further what you ignore is that Republicans created that debt over 20 years, Democrats created more debt on a per year basis over 11 years.

GW Bush-8 years, 4.9 trillion dollars
Obama-3 years, 4.5 trillion dollars.

At the end of Obama's first term what do you believe his debt is going to be?

You do realize our National debt is going to $20T during the next administration regardless of who is elected in November?

Conservative said:
Last I checked a 1/2 trillion deficit is less than trillion dollar deficits of Obama and in addition the 4.9 trillion dollars in 8 years is less per year than the 4.5 trillion in three years. Liberal economic policies suck

Conservative said:
As usual, nothing to do with the thread topic and no answer to the disastrous debt created by "your" President. The current debt now exceeds our yearly GDP and another four years will make that debt over 20 trillion dollars. I look forward to you sending in your share of that debt since I am sure you want to support "your" President by paying your fair share.

Yes, you are constantly admonishing people for ignoring "the facts". What we are ignoring is your tired OPINION has been repeatedly set forth and quite clear. Many of us remember other facts; like the last Republican Administration took an essentially balanced budget (extremely modest annual deficits) and ran up huge annual deficits (of $1T annually) through a variety of boneheaded moves including starting two wars (which cost from $1 to $3T), while cutting taxes and then delivering to his successor an economy in very, very deep recession. Some of us thing the economic policies of the other party are ill thought out and very dangerous, with that hypothesis well proven by 8 years of the previous president.

Sorry, but your continued mantra adds nothing new to the debate; in fact, it is increasingly unconvincing as it is boorish. I appreciate the fact that Fox News has great success saying something enough times that people take it as fact, but most of us on this board are smarter than that. Telling people they are idiots for not seeing the world as you do is, in fact, a form of idiocy. Don't be the guy.

Imnukingfutz · Dec 30, 2011

treedancer said:
Keep up; Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and a couple of months later the revenues started going up. I posted a graph which evidently you missed.

Ummm...thats why I said the economy was strong enough to handle it...read my other posts in this thread so you might catch onto the meaning of that statement.

treedancer said:
The bush tax cuts were boneheaded because they were put into effect when we were at war.UNFUNDED. Compounding the boneheaded move was putting in place Medicare plan D (prescription drugs), which also was... UNFUNDED.Geeez...bush was left a surplus and he headed our country straight into the ditch were digging ourselves out of now.

Please take an economic 101 class. You lower spending ( and taxes) when things are tough and you increase spending (and taxes) when the economy is growing.

With this stupid, complex, asinine progressive tax system we have the rates can not stay stagnant, they must always be in a state of flux.

And as far as the debt goes....tell this Congress and President to stop spending. In the past 3 years they have outspent the previous drunk spenders from their 8 year spending spree.

treedancer said:
Kinda hard to slash taxes when we have a big ass deficit isn’t it? with that $ trillion dollar elephant in the room cutting taxes doesn’t increase revenue. with this big ass deficit we need to see revenue going up not down.

As proven by IRS & Treasury data, when taxes are lowered the following years sees increases in revenue. It is a cycle. What is wrong now is that the government is trying to micromanage that cycle and they are screwing it up.

treedancer said:
SSooo… it stands to reason that those that made the most dough for the last decade and got the most benefit of the bush tax-cuts should be the ones that should tote the biggest part of the load .Our current tax level is the lowest its been since 1958 and with all the loopholes/ tax breaks the CORP tax-rate is now the second lowest as share of GDP of developed countries. Let the Verizons, Boeing and General Electric cough up a few quid in taxes for a change.

I dont mean this the wrong way but you dont have a clue. Im sorry.

Conservative · Dec 30, 2011

upsideguy;1060068443]First, no one is "running from the answers"... you have been answered over and over, but you have the listening skills of Helen Keller (if I can be politically incorrect for a moment to drive home a point). You are not interested in, nor do you respect, any opinion that is contrary to your own. I suggest it is you that runs from the answers.

The problem is that is all it is, your opinion. I get my information from non partisan sites like Bureau of economic analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Census Bureau, and then even the media that you have access to. I respect opinions based upon logic, common sense, and facts. no facts have been presented to refute what I have posted from those non partisan sites.

Yes, you have posted the same thing over and over and over and over and over (did I forget an over or two?) again. Again, what you insist are facts are just opinions. Your "facts" get diluted (or should I say deluded) when you insist on assigning "blame" to Obama for the facts. I do not deny you have an argument, but an argument is an opinion, not a fact.

But an argument backed by data, non partisan factual data, is indeed fact. I have even offered information that led to that data but you ignored it.

Let's take one of your favorite items: the increase in the federal debt since Obama took office.

It is a fact that the debt was, according to the US Treasury, $10.6T on January 31, 2009 and $14.8T on September 30, 2011. Each are verifiable facts (Government - Welcome to the Government Section of TreasuryDirect). The change in the debt during that period can be objectively derived from those facts by calculation ($14.8 - $10.6 = $4.2)..

FACT: 1) Debt was $10.6T at 1/31/2009; 2) Debt is $14.8T at 9/30/2011; and 3) Debt increased by $4.2T between January 2009 and September 2011.
FACT: 1) Obama became President in January 2009 and Obama served continuously as President through September 2011.

Compound fact derived from logic: The Debt rose $4.2T during the first 2.7 years of the Obama Administration. Your assertion above is close to this; objective, but with a bias, suggesting the one fact is relevant to the other (there is a suggestion of correlation or even causation)

Opinion: Your continued suggestion that the $4.2T increase in debt was Obama's fault. The debt increased $3.94B on his first day in office. Was that his fault? Will the next Republican to take office be accountable for the increase in the debt on his first day, first week, first month, first budget (that he did not begin)? I don't think so. The fact is the debt increased. Who is responsible for this increase in debt is a matter of opinion.

What you want to ignore is the information that went into that debt including TARP which was a LOAN not an expense that wouldn't be paid back. It was paid back except for GM/Chrylser and Fredding and Fannie but somehow that escapes you. Where did the money go for that repayment and why would that repayment not be used to credit what you claim is the Bush deficit?

Further where is the cost of the Stimulus program in the 2009 deficit and why is that charged to Bush? Where is the cost of the GM/Chrysler takeover and why is that charged to Bush? Where is the cost of the Afghanistan supplementals and why is that charged to Bush? Where are the charges from the Obama Department heads that spend the money from january 21. 2009 to the end of fiscal year 2009 and why is that charged to Bush? Obama had other supplementals passed in 2009 but all those you believe are Bush's. Further who controlled the budget process, Republicans or Democrats for fiscal year 2009

You do realize our National debt is going to $20T during the next administration regardless of who is elected in November?

That is your opinion, you don't cut the deficit by increasing the budget and not cutting anything. Obama has spent about 3.7 trillion dollars a year since taking office which is 600 billion a year more than the last Bush budget 2008(budget without TARP/Stimulus/GM Takeover/Afghanistan supplementals. It won't increase if actual spending is cut and Democrats buy votes with that spending thus won't do it.

Yes, you are constantly admonishing people for ignoring "the facts". What we are ignoring is your tired OPINION has been repeatedly set forth and quite clear. Many of us remember other facts; like the last Republican Administration took an essentially balanced budget (extremely modest annual deficits) and ran up huge annual deficits (of $1T annually) through a variety of boneheaded moves including starting two wars (which cost from $1 to $3T), while cutting taxes and then delivering to his successor an economy in very, very deep recession. Some of us thing the economic policies of the other party are ill thought out and very dangerous, with that hypothesis well proven by 8 years of the previous president.

Tired opinion to you is anything that refutes what you believe. Many of you buy what you are told and ignore reality. you really need to take a basic civics course so you understand who controls the purse strings. Democrats controlled those purse strings from January 2007 to January 2011. Republicans controlled them from January 1994 to the end of the Clinton Administration. You also need to understand that the tax cuts were passed prior to the wars beginning but of course that isn't a fact that you want to acknowledge, just like you don't want to acknowledge that the American taxpayers need the money more than the Federal Govt.

I find it interesting that you and other ideologues talk about facts then offer your opinion void of facts. Obama helped create what he says he inherited but what you want to ignore is that the country was coming out of recession when he took office, the recession ended in June 2009 so what economic policy was in place that ended that recession and if the recession is over why is economic growth so much lower this year than last?

Civics isn't your strong suit but you certainly have been brainwashed by rhetoric.

Sorry, but your continued mantra adds nothing new to the debate; in fact, it is increasingly unconvincing as it is boorish. I appreciate the fact that Fox News has great success saying something enough times that people take it as fact, but most of us on this board are smarter than that. Telling people they are idiots for not seeing the world as you do is, in fact, a form of idiocy. Don't be the guy.

My continued mantra as you call it confuses you with facts, facts that fly in the face of what your believe or have been told. Stop thinking with your heart and do some actual research. When challenged with non partisan data I am charged with getting that information from Fox News. Noticed that neither you or anyone else has refuted the data I have listed and in fact you agreed with the debt number. Now find out what data went into that debt number?

I have see no evidence that many of the Obama supporters on this board are smart at all. They buy rhetoric and the great energy and appearance of this President who seems like a nice guy but is in way over his head. he is totally and completely incompetent when it comes to leadership or maybe he isn't and is doing exactly what he wants, converting this to a European style socialist model that has failed. Liberal arrogance refuses to acknowledge that.

Donc · Dec 30, 2011

Imnukingfutz said:
Ummm...thats why I said the economy was strong enough to handle it...read my other posts in this thread so you might catch onto the meaning of that statement.

Please take an economic 101 class. You lower spending ( and taxes) when things are tough and you increase spending (and taxes) when the economy is growing.

With this stupid, complex, asinine progressive tax system we have the rates can not stay stagnant, they must always be in a state of flux.

And as far as the debt goes....tell this Congress and President to stop spending. In the past 3 years they have outspent the previous drunk spenders from their 8 year spending spree.

As proven by IRS & Treasury data, when taxes are lowered the following years sees increases in revenue. It is a cycle. What is wrong now is that the government is trying to micromanage that cycle and they are screwing it up.

I dont mean this the wrong way but you dont have a clue. Im sorry.

Did you not say in post #565 the following?” The Kennedy, Reagan and Bush tax cuts increased revenue to the treasury. “

To which I replied with a graph, which showed that, wasn’t the case with Clinton; who raised taxes in 1993, and the economy took off shortly thereafter. Your statement about the Clinton tax increase that “the economy was strong enough to handle it” kinda makes me wonder, when you consider the state of the economy at the time.

10 million unemployed, record deficits, poverty and welfare rolls growing, incomes losing ground to inflation, jobs were being created at the slowest rate since the Great Depression. Looks like a microseism of what we are now facing doesn’t it?:2wave:

Neomalthusian · Dec 30, 2011

Link

Donc · Dec 30, 2011

Neomalthusian said:
Link

January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989

The gipper years

Lets take a look at the Gipper years. Soon after the Gipper took office he signed into law one of the largest tax cuts in the postwar period. The debt held by the public at that time, 1981, was $789.4 (in billions). In 1982, which I imagine would be when the tax cuts kicked in, the debt was $924.6.

Hhmm…am I seeing the beginning of a trend here? In 1983 it took off big time $1,137.3.In 1984 it was on a roll at $ 1,307.0.1985 it was $ 1,507.3,1986, $ 1,740.6.1987,$1,889.8,1988,$ 2,051.6 finally the end of the gipper years and the nation takes a collective sigh, was topped off with 1989, $ 2,190.7.

Lets recap the gippers two terms.Debt Held by public was=Jan of 1981,$ 789.4 when the gipper left office it was =$ 2,051.6.Kinda looks like the gipper more than doubled the debt in eight years eh?:shock:

Clinton years
January 20, 1993 – January 20, 2001

Lets check out BJ,s(Clinton) numbers.

Jan of 1993, $ 3,248.4,1994, $ 3,433.1, I would imagine that the tax increase kicked in by now so I would expect to see national debt in a death spiral by 1995, using my winger logic that “tax cuts increase revenue to the treasury “

So it would seem that increasing taxes should send the debt into orbit.1995, $ 3,604.4,Meh…we’ll see what 1996 brings.1996,$ 3,734.1

GASP!!:shock:This cant be right, the debt should be sky rocking by now…HE RAISED TAXES IN 93!! 1997,$ 3,772.3,OH GOD!! They almost went down; with any luck at all maybe 1998 will bring us a reprieve.

1998, $ 3,721.1.What the hell!!! Is that little fat girl hanging around the oval office bringing Clinton luck? 1999, $ 3,632.4.

WTF!!!Pecker tracks all over the oval office??? We cant get a friggen break. With any luck at all the Y2k thingy will maybe kick in .2000,$ 3,409.8.MAN.. this is some serous ****, the only way we can get out of this **** is steal an election.2001,$ 3,319.6

Now the recap on BJ(Clinton). When he took office the 1993 numbers were $ 3,248.4 when he left office the numbers were $3,319.6.

Effectively balanced…with a tax increase.

Sooo…looking at these numbers, explain your theory of “The Kennedy, Reagan and Bush tax cuts increased revenue to the treasury. “

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

Conservative · Dec 30, 2011

treedancer said:
January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989

The gipper years

Lets take a look at the Gipper years. Soon after the Gipper took office he signed into law one of the largest tax cuts in the postwar period. The debt held by the public at that time, 1981, was $789.4 (in billions). In 1982, which I imagine would be when the tax cuts kicked in, the debt was $924.6.

Hhmm…am I seeing the beginning of a trend here? In 1983 it took off big time $1,137.3.In 1984 it was on a roll at $ 1,307.0.1985 it was $ 1,507.3,1986, $ 1,740.6.1987,$1,889.8,1988,$ 2,051.6 finally the end of the gipper years and the nation takes a collective sigh, was topped off with 1989, $ 2,190.7.

Lets recap the gippers two terms.Debt Held by public was=Jan of 1981,$ 789.4 when the gipper left office it was =$ 2,051.6.Kinda looks like the gipper more than doubled the debt in eight years eh?:shock:

Clinton years
January 20, 1993 – January 20, 2001

Lets check out BJ,s(Clinton) numbers.

Jan of 1993, $ 3,248.4,1994, $ 3,433.1, I would imagine that the tax increase kicked in by now so I would expect to see national debt in a death spiral by 1995, using my winger logic that “tax cuts increase revenue to the treasury “

So it would seem that increasing taxes should send the debt into orbit.1995, $ 3,604.4,Meh…we’ll see what 1996 brings.1996,$ 3,734.1

GASP!!:shock:This cant be right, the debt should be sky rocking by now…HE RAISED TAXES IN 93!! 1997,$ 3,772.3,OH GOD!! They almost went down; with any luck at all maybe 1998 will bring us a reprieve.

1998, $ 3,721.1.What the hell!!! Is that little fat girl hanging around the oval office bringing Clinton luck? 1999, $ 3,632.4.

WTF!!!Pecker tracks all over the oval office??? We cant get a friggen break. With any luck at all the Y2k thingy will maybe kick in .2000,$ 3,409.8.MAN.. this is some serous ****, the only way we can get out of this **** is steal an election.2001,$ 3,319.6

Now the recap on BJ(Clinton). When he took office the 1993 numbers were $ 3,248.4 when he left office the numbers were $3,319.6.

Effectively balanced…with a tax increase.

Sooo…looking at these numbers, explain your theory of “The Kennedy, Reagan and Bush tax cuts increased revenue to the treasury. “

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

I wish I could understand people like you as I have never seen so much passion for higher taxes and keeping less of your money. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty that ignores actual results and the 15 trillion dollar debt we have today? Anyone that believes higher taxes are going to increase revenue that will be used to lower the deficit is out of touch with reality. Rather frustrating watching this.

How are you coming on notifying the Treasury that their numbers are wrong? CBO seems to be the gospel for you yet you don't have a clue what the CBO reports and ignores what the bank account of the U.S. shows. I don't get it. Do you work for the govt?

Debt by year
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

First with regard to Reagan I find it interesting how liberals always point to the 1.7 trillion dollar debt but not the 17 million jobs created as well as the doubling of GDP and 60% increase in FIT revenue

Now as for Clinton, here are the facts

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...-the-clinton-tax-hike-produced-the-1990s-boom

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...-obamanomics-fallacies-offered-by-the-left/2/

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

Donc · Dec 30, 2011

Conservative said:
I wish I could understand people like you as I have never seen so much passion for higher taxes and keeping less of your money. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty that ignores actual results and the 15 trillion dollar debt we have today? Anyone that believes higher taxes are going to increase revenue that will be used to lower the deficit is out of touch with reality. Rather frustrating watching this.

How are you coming on notifying the Treasury that their numbers are wrong? CBO seems to be the gospel for you yet you don't have a clue what the CBO reports and ignores what the bank account of the U.S. shows. I don't get it. Do you work for the govt?

Debt by year
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

First with regard to Reagan I find it interesting how liberals always point to the 1.7 trillion dollar debt but not the 17 million jobs created as well as the doubling of GDP and 60% increase in FIT revenue

Now as for Clinton, here are the facts

Tax Cuts, Not the Clinton Tax Hike, Produced the 1990s Boom

Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Fallacies Offered By The Left - Forbes

The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform

You’re a friggen hoot.Panning CBO while giving a winger think tank as a link.

Prove me/the numbers I posted wrong. By the way,heres where CBO got their numbers from. :2wave:

source
Congressional Budget Office; Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis; Office of Management and Budget.

Conservative · Dec 30, 2011

treedancer said:
You’re a friggen hoot.Panning CBO while giving a winger think tank as a link.

Prove me/the numbers I posted wrong. By the way,heres where CBO got their numbers from. :2wave:

source
Congressional Budget Office; Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis; Office of Management and Budget.

The numbers at the Treasury are right as that is the bank account of the United States. BEA.gov will give you the revenue as well as the GDP growth during the Reagan years but you really have no interest in real non partisan sites. I suggest you do some research on the CBO and how accurate their data is. BEA, U.S. Treasury prove you wrong.

http://www.bea.gov/index.htm

Donc · Dec 30, 2011

Conservative said:
The numbers at the Treasury are right as that is the bank account of the United States. BEA.gov will give you the revenue as well as the GDP growth during the Reagan years but you really have no interest in real non partisan sites. I suggest you do some research on the CBO and how accurate their data is. BEA, U.S. Treasury prove you wrong.

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)

Give me a synopsis. in the meantime i will go with this "Bureau of Economic Analysis; Office of Management and Budget ":2wave:

Conservative · Dec 30, 2011

treedancer said:
Give me a synopsis. in the meantime i will go with this "Bureau of Economic Analysis; Office of Management and Budget ":2wave:

Actually it will do you some good to actually do some research and get non partisan data. No synopsis I give you will ever be accepted by you or any brainwashed liberal.

Donc · Dec 30, 2011

Conservative said:
Actually it will do you some good to actually do some research and get non partisan data. No synopsis I give you will ever be accepted by you or any brainwashed liberal.

And evidently "Bureau of Economic Analysis; Office of Management"numbers will never satisfy braindead wingers either eh?

Dickieboy · Dec 30, 2011

treedancer said:
Lets check out BJ,s(Clinton) numbers.

Jan of 1993, $ 3,248.4,1994, $ 3,433.1, I would imagine that the tax increase kicked in by now so I would expect to see national debt in a death spiral by 1995, using my winger logic that “tax cuts increase revenue to the treasury “

So it would seem that increasing taxes should send the debt into orbit.1995, $ 3,604.4,Meh…we’ll see what 1996 brings.1996,$ 3,734.1

GASP!!:shock:This cant be right, the debt should be sky rocking by now…HE RAISED TAXES IN 93!! 1997,$ 3,772.3,OH GOD!! They almost went down; with any luck at all maybe 1998 will bring us a reprieve.

1998, $ 3,721.1.What the hell!!! Is that little fat girl hanging around the oval office bringing Clinton luck? 1999, $ 3,632.4.

WTF!!!Pecker tracks all over the oval office??? We cant get a friggen break. With any luck at all the Y2k thingy will maybe kick in .2000,$ 3,409.8.MAN.. this is some serous ****, the only way we can get out of this **** is steal an election.2001,$ 3,319.6

Now the recap on BJ(Clinton). When he took office the 1993 numbers were $ 3,248.4 when he left office the numbers were $3,319.6.

Effectively balanced…with a tax increase.

Sooo…looking at these numbers, explain your theory of “The Kennedy, Reagan and Bush tax cuts increased revenue to the treasury. “

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

Nice history 'lesson' but you left off the 'Taxpayer relief Act of 1997', you know the TAX CUTS that increased revenue and reduced the debt you so accurately reported...?

Donc · Dec 30, 2011

Dickieboy said:
Nice history 'lesson' but you left off the 'Taxpayer relief Act of 1997', you know the TAX CUTS that increased revenue and reduced the debt you so accurately reported...?

I made the point i was shooting for though.

Conservative · Dec 30, 2011

treedancer said:
I made the point i was shooting for though.

What point would that be since you ignored the Tax Relief Act of 1997 when pointing out the 1998-2001 numbers. How can tax cuts grow govt revenue? Hmmm, isn't that the point Conservatives have been making for some time?

Dickieboy · Dec 30, 2011

treedancer said:
I made the point i was shooting for though.

So when you said:

Effectively balanced…with a tax increase.

Sooo…looking at these numbers, explain your theory of “The Kennedy, Reagan and Bush tax cuts increased revenue to the treasury. “

when in fact it was balanced with a TAX CUT...then you want an explaination 'on theory...tax cuts increased revenue'. What was your point? That you are a superior fallacious debater?

Donc · Dec 30, 2011

Conservative said:
What point would that be since you ignored the Tax Relief Act of 1997 when pointing out the 1998-2001 numbers. How can tax cuts grow govt revenue? Hmmm, isn't that the point Conservatives have been making for some time?

Maybe you should hit the sack early tonight.With a good nights sleep you MIGHT be able to figure out the point i made,then again...

Conservative · Dec 30, 2011

treedancer said:
Maybe you should hit the sack early tonight.With a good nights sleep you MIGHT be able to figure out the point i made,then again...

Doesn't look like I am alone so like many other liberals here you are a legend in your own mind.

Sooo…looking at these numbers, explain your theory of “The Kennedy, Reagan and Bush tax cuts increased revenue to the treasury. “

when in fact it was balanced with a TAX CUT...then you want an explaination 'on theory...tax cuts increased revenue'. What was your point? That you are a superior fallacious debater?

upsideguy · Dec 31, 2011

OpportunityCost said:
I think we differ on the proportions. Right now I think we should be cutting a great deal more than we are taxing because spending has risen so dramatically in the last decade. I do indeed hold both parties responsible.

Interesting. So you take a restorative approach, taking steps now to return the economy to where it was a decade ago.

Well, in 2000, we had individual and corporate income tax revenue of $1.2T, or 12.2% of the $9.9T GDP. In 2009, we had income tax revenue of less than $1.1T, or 7.2% of the $14.1T GDP. So, under the restorative approach, we should have an across the board tax increase of 50% to return income taxes to the level they were when our budget was generally balanced.

Poll: Debt ceiling deal should include cuts and tax increases

Conservative

upsideguy

Pragmatic Idealist

Gill

misterman

Imnukingfutz

Donc

upsideguy

Pragmatic Idealist

Imnukingfutz

Conservative

Donc

Neomalthusian

Donc

Conservative

Donc

Conservative

Donc

Conservative

Donc

Dickieboy

Donc

Conservative

Dickieboy

Donc

Conservative

upsideguy

Pragmatic Idealist