• 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!

Obama State of the Union

QUOTE

I keep hearing that the tax cut went to the top 1%. Did you get a tax cut? I did and I am not in the top 1%. Explain to me how govt. revenue grew AFTER the tax cut. Stop with the class envy.


The point of my post wasn’t whether you or I got a tax cut, it was that those that could most afford to pay the taxes got the lions share of the benefits.

Looking at it in hindsight, is the damage to the future economy that it caused, considering that we had two wars going on at the time. That smacked of sheer lunacy.

Here’s something you might like to look at, which of course you will ignore but someone else just might find rather interesting.

4-14-04tax-f1.jpg


Here’s where it came from.


Tax Returns: A Comprehensive Assessment of the Bush Administration's Record on Cutting Taxes — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

And here for those that are into pdf,s.


Why do I need to show you anything as you won't believe it. Do some research for a change at non partisan sites

Got nothing eh?


You are indeed confused and really beyond hope.

Movin on along.:2wave:




As is now obvious you are incapable of understanding even what is posted. Tell that to the GAO and the cost was for 9/11 and the hurricanes.


Hurricanes, like Floyd, which you attributed to bush, when it hit during Clintons term? :rofl



We were talking about fiscal year 2009 which you claim that Obama inherited yet conveniently ignored that most of the deficit for fiscal year 2009 was after Bush left office so Bush couldn't veto anything. TARP was passed after the budget and contributed to the debt but most of TARP has been paid back.


Yet bush had the option to veto anything that the dems came up with during the last two years that they had control of Congress. SOoo…. it kinda looks like he was quite pleased with the fact that he had at up to that time the largest debt on any President in history; hence no veto of anything that even smacked of increasing the debt . It’s nice that you seem to agree with that fact.



Why don't you grow up and actually do some research

Why didn’t you go to the link I provided and research it yourself? If you did you would have found an in-debt explanation for the clip that I provide. < Part D a $9.4 trillion unfunded liability over the next 75 years> So sad when someone gets so shiftless that they cant even open a website .



Since you are all over the board apparently we can talk about anything. Why is that relevant?


Silly me I thought that a $25 billion contract for mercenaries would be relevant to the ($12 billion a month) cost of the war in Iraq. :roll:
 
donc;1058595450]The point of my post wasn’t whether you or I got a tax cut, it was that those that could most afford to pay the taxes got the lions share of the benefits.

Looking at it in hindsight, is the damage to the future economy that it caused, considering that we had two wars going on at the time. That smacked of sheer lunacy.

Here’s something you might like to look at, which of course you will ignore but someone else just might find rather interesting.

4-14-04tax-f1.jpg


Here’s where it came from.


Tax Returns: A Comprehensive Assessment of the Bush Administration's Record on Cutting Taxes — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

And here for those that are into pdf,s.

What a crock! Did you check the date of that article? Only in the liberal world does math trump personal consumer activity. Yes, of course if consumer activity generates the same amount of economic activity does the tax revenue go up, but liberals like you simply don't get it. Tax cuts put more money into the individual's pocket and they spent it, saved it, or invested it, all helping the economy. Individuals paying less taxes created millions of new taxpayers thus the revenue went up. Stop buying what you are told and think for a change.

People with less money never create jobs because they never increase demand. It is obvious that you are an Obama supporter.


Hurricanes, like Floyd, which you attributed to bush, when it hit during Clintons term? :rofl

Katrina, Ike, and Rita where the major hurricanes but again keep diverting from the fact that 9/11 was the significan cost.


Yet bush had the option to veto anything that the dems came up with during the last two years that they had control of Congress. SOoo…. it kinda looks like he was quite pleased with the fact that he had at up to that time the largest debt on any President in history; hence no veto of anything that even smacked of increasing the debt . It’s nice that you seem to agree with that fact.

Did you check out the deficits the last two years of the Bush Administration? Obviously you haven't a clue as to what you are talking about since you want to blame Bush for the 10.6 trillion dollar debt




Why didn’t you go to the link I provided and research it yourself? If you did you would have found an in-debt explanation for the clip that I provide. < Part D a $9.4 trillion unfunded liability over the next 75 years> So sad when someone gets so shiftless that they cant even open a website .

What you are providing are PROJECTED liability and not what is actually happening. Do you know the difference?




Silly me I thought that a $25 billion contract for mercenaries would be relevant to the ($12 billion a month) cost of the war in Iraq. :roll:


Again, 25 billion dollars over how many years? Figure out how much that is per year and apply that to the total budget. Mental midgets will never understand what it means to actually think.
 
Last edited:
What a crock! Did you check the date of that article? Only in the liberal world does math trump personal consumer activity. Yes, of course if consumer activity generates the same amount of economic activity does the tax revenue go up, but liberals like you simply don't get it. Tax cuts put more money into the individual's pocket and they spent it, saved it, or invested it, all helping the economy. Individuals paying less taxes created millions of new taxpayers thus the revenue went up. Stop buying what you are told and think for a change.

People with less money never create jobs because they never increase demand. It is obvious that you are an Obama supporter.




Katrina, Ike, and Rita where the major hurricanes but again keep diverting from the fact that 9/11 was the significan cost.




Did you check out the deficits the last two years of the Bush Administration? Obviously you haven't a clue as to what you are talking about since you want to blame Bush for the 10.6 trillion dollar debt






What you are providing are PROJECTED liability and not what is actually happening. Do you know the difference?







Again, 25 billion dollars over how many years? Figure out how much that is per year and apply that to the total budget. Mental midgets will never understand what it means to actually think.
i wonder how you continually get away with denigrating other posters.
 
i wonder how you continually get away with denigrating other posters.

You mean by confusing them with actual facts? Sorry, I could become an Obama supporter, naw, not going to happen.
 
Conservative

Did you check the date of that article? Yes, of course if consumer activity generates the same amount of economic activity does the tax revenue go up, but liberals like you simply don't get it. Tax cuts put more money into the individual's pocket and they spent it, saved it, or invested it, all helping the economy. Individuals paying less taxes created millions of new taxpayers thus the revenue went up.

People with less money never create jobs because they never increase demand. It is obvious that you are an Obama supporter.

Most of the money is spent by those who have the least, therefore they are the ones gen up the economy.

The chart doesn’t lie, if you take exception with it, post something besides your opinion.As for as the date it is within the dates that were discussing.



Katrina, Ike, and Rita where the major hurricanes but again keep diverting from the fact that 9/11 was the significan cost.

All of the above just shows what lunatics we had in charge, that would put in tax-cuts during trying times like that. When we had an incompetent administration, operating under Vice president five deferments, mantra of” deficits don’t matter” followed up with Medicare part D,no offsets+no negotiating with big pharma on drug prices, plus starting a useless war, again with no offsets, then to cap it off with two tax cuts You don’t see the mad hatter in any of this s***. :doh




Did you check out the deficits the last two years of the Bush Administration?

Why didn’t he find something to veto rather than increasing the debt? Surely their was something he could have vetoed in eight years of unprecedented spending.

Seeing as how you want to talk about deficits; how about this little factoid.

< The first seven years of the G.W. Bush presidency increased the deficit by half again as much as the 32 years from JFK through G.H.W.Bush combined, and somewhat more than the 24 years from Harding through FDR combined (remember, this is in inflation-adjusted dollars).>

http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.htm

but of course you want to discuss bushes last two years eh?

Better look at this first though. Careful what you say, as I know where it came from and it has more damnable evidence of complete incompetency.

zFacts-Gross-National-Deficit.gif



What you are providing are PROJECTED liability and not what is actually happening.

OHhh?? And why didn’t bush veto it until he could have some real savings kick in…negotiating, like the VA does for their drugs? Here’s some more projecting for ya.

< 2009 through 2018 are estimated to be $727.3 billion>

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/tr2009.pdf
 
donc;1058596629]Most of the money is spent by those who have the least, therefore they are the ones gen up the economy.

The chart doesn’t lie, if you take exception with it, post something besides your opinion.As for as the date it is within the dates that were discussing.

Donc, what is it that the liberals have over you and so many others just like you? This is like a cult following where facts don't matter and actual projections are facts. You do not seem to have a clue as to what you are talking about or even reading.

The article is dated April 2004 and MAKES PROJECTIONS about the future using the assumptions that economic activity will remain the same throughout the future. there is no assurance that would happen.

You don't seem to understand that projections aren't actual facts and real facts come from actual economic activity. It is frustrating when I am talking to someone who hasn't a clue but that seems to be the case with all Obama supporters.


All of the above just shows what lunatics we had in charge, that would put in tax-cuts during trying times like that. When we had an incompetent administration, operating under Vice president five deferments, mantra of” deficits don’t matter” followed up with Medicare part D,no offsets+no negotiating with big pharma on drug prices, plus starting a useless war, again with no offsets, then to cap it off with two tax cuts You don’t see the mad hatter in any of this s***. :doh

You really have a lot invested in hatred for the past Administration. All of it seems to be based upon ignorance. Don't know who you are listening to but you don't have a clue as to how our economy works, how we have three equal branches of govt. and that our economy is built on free enterprise and capitalism. You could help yourself a lot by going to the Bureau of Economic Analysis for economic numbers, Bureau of Labor Statistics for employment numbers, and the U.S. Treasury for spending and revenue. That would make you at least a little better educated.

Why didn’t he find something to veto rather than increasing the debt? Surely their was something he could have vetoed in eight years of unprecedented spending.

That unprecedented spending has been put on steroids by the current President yet I don't see any outrage. I will be the first to admit that Bush should have vetoed some of that spending but didn't. Now we have a President who is spending more in two years than Bush spent in 8 yet not a word.

Seeing as how you want to talk about deficits; how about this little factoid.

< The first seven years of the G.W. Bush presidency increased the deficit by half again as much as the 32 years from JFK through G.H.W.Bush combined, and somewhat more than the 24 years from Harding through FDR combined (remember, this is in inflation-adjusted dollars).>

http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.htm

but of course you want to discuss bushes last two years eh?

No, I will be more than happy to discuss all 8 years of the Bush Administration but you cannot seem to discuss the topic of this thread which is Obama and all his spending. Talking to you though is like talking to one of my grandkids as you don't understand anything about the fiscal year of the U.S. and the affect Congress has on the budget. You simply don't want to know.

Better look at this first though. Careful what you say, as I know where it came from and it has more damnable evidence of complete incompetency.

zFacts-Gross-National-Deficit.gif

There is nothing here that I need to address with you because you simply aren't smart enough to understand the data in this chart. Why do you believe projections and ignore actual results?
 
It really serves no purpose to discuss issues with those that lack the basic understanding of debt and deficits nor how our economy works. Debt is cumulative and deficit is yearly. Bush inherited a 5.6 trillion debt and added 5 trillion to it. Included in that debt was the cost of 9/11, Hurricane's Katrina, Floyd, Rita, and Ike which is over a trillion of that debt. The cost of the wars were 100 billion per year according to the GAO so go back to school and get an education on how to do research. You now want to blame Bush for the debt he inherited?




That "Junior" Senator was running for President and that "junion" Senator was part of the Democrat Majority that controlled Congress. Congress is an equal branch of the govt. thus is responsible just like the President for any deficits. Please get a civics education.





LOL, nice revisionist history and again something that diverts from my post. what has the cost of the Medicare Part B program been? Not sure where you get your information but Moveon.org would be proud as most of the information you post is false.



Actually if I were you I would be embarrassed about posting lies, distortions, and diversions. Have you no pride?



Stop making a fool out of yourself. BEA.govt, BLS.gov, and the U.S. Treasury site shows different data that yours and those are the official sites. You really need to get a clue.




I suggest you actually get data from non partisan sites. It would make you look smarter than you do by posting the false information you are posting.

Those waves you are posting are actually waves to all those brain cells that have left your head.

You are my hero, pee wee.:roll:
 
QUOTE=Conservative;

The article is dated April 2004 and MAKES PROJECTIONS about the future using the assumptions that economic activity will remain the same throughout the future. there is no assurance that would happen.

Just as there is no assurance that you or I will wake be alive tomorrow. Like you say, it’s a dated article so it should be pretty easy so debunk. Have at it.

You really have a lot invested in hatred for the past Administration.

Opinion as well as projection.:roll:


All of it seems to be based upon ignorance.

Getting better here; just opinion,but you forgot to post your ignorance.;)

Don't know who you are listening to but you don't have a clue as to how our economy works,


Hhmm…< Medicare part D, no offsets> maybe I should go back to school. Do you know off hand where there is school that has a good course in voo-doo economics? :shock:


how we have three equal branches of govt. and that our economy is built on free enterprise and capitalism.

Maybe I can get a few online credits on (negotiating with big pharma on drug prices with no offsets of course)the economy being what is, gotta save a few dinero when you can, the bush depression/ recession being what it is.


You could help yourself a lot by going to the Bureau of Economic Analysis for economic numbers, Bureau of Labor Statistics for employment numbers, and the U.S. Treasury for spending and revenue. That would make you at least a little better educated.


Perhaps I could get a miner on (starting a useless war, again with no offsets, then to cap it off with two tax cuts)do you think?Besides I thought you were against projections,it seems that I remember a few projections made by (Bureau of Economic Analysis for economic numbers).could be wrong though.


No, I will be more than happy to discuss all 8 years of the Bush Administration but you cannot seem to discuss the topic of this thread which is Obama and all his spending.

Coulda sworn you posted this in post# 877 (Did you check out the deficits the last two years of the Bush Administration?) :confused:

There is nothing here that I need to address with you because you simply aren't smart enough to understand the data in this chart.


Silly me, I thought that when you ask about the last two years of the bush missadministation that chart would come in handy. Are you saying that it is wrong? :shock:
 
donc;1058597757]Just as there is no assurance that you or I will wake be alive tomorrow. Like you say, it’s a dated article so it should be pretty easy so debunk. Have at it.



Opinion as well as projection.:roll:




Getting better here; just opinion,but you forgot to post your ignorance.;)




Hhmm…< Medicare part D, no offsets> maybe I should go back to school. Do you know off hand where there is school that has a good course in voo-doo economics? :shock:




Maybe I can get a few online credits on (negotiating with big pharma on drug prices with no offsets of course)the economy being what is, gotta save a few dinero when you can, the bush depression/ recession being what it is.





Perhaps I could get a miner on (starting a useless war, again with no offsets, then to cap it off with two tax cuts)do you think?Besides I thought you were against projections,it seems that I remember a few projections made by (Bureau of Economic Analysis for economic numbers).could be wrong though.




Coulda sworn you posted this in post# 877 (Did you check out the deficits the last two years of the Bush Administration?) :confused:




Silly me, I thought that when you ask about the last two years of the bush missadministation that chart would come in handy. Are you saying that it is wrong? :shock:

Actually the chart I was talking about did not get attached to my response. The chart I was talking about was the Drug projected costs. The chart you posted on the debt was correct but:

Since you are so concerned about the deficit and debt created by GW Bush, I wonder your thoughts on the following:

Government Racks Up $43 Billion Deficit In January, On Pace to Surpass Last Year's Record Shortfall - Political Punch

Bush isn't in office and "your" President will add more in three years than Bush added in 8 years yet you continue to want to bash Bush?
 
Last edited:
I don't know if any of the current politicians have any clue how to get us out of this mess. Look at the Greece with its bloated government and social programs - soon it may be happening here.
 
Back
Top Bottom