• 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!

Where is the Tea Party??

CaughtInThe said:
Our deficit is soaring. Why did they fall silent after Obama??


View attachment 67271962
Click to expand...

Trump attacks all the brown people, pretends he is pro-life, talks to them about the war on Christmas, and hugs the flag while complaining about those uppity black NFL bastards. Who cares about debt and deficits?
 
tres borrachos said:
Trump attacks all the brown people, pretends he is pro-life, talks to them about the war on Christmas, and hugs the flag while complaining about those uppity black NFL bastards. Who cares about debt and deficits?
Click to expand...

it may be dirty as hell but it's genius if you're a con man.
 
GreatNews2night said:
View attachment 67272132

Actually you're just proving the point. You are mixing up deficit and debt, as evidenced by your use of both words in your sentence. Yep, if you spend money you don't have you get debt, but if you spend money you do have, there is no debt. So, if your disposable income is way bigger than your expenses and you use your credit card but you spend less than what you earn, then there is no debt.

Pray tell, how do governments earn the money? By collecting taxes. Dramatically cut taxes: that's equivalent to the owner of that credit card having a huge cut in his salary. At that point, if he keeps spending or even if he reduces spending but still spends more than his disposable income and can't afford to pay his credit card bill, that's when that credit card will acquire a debt, right? Because if you use your credit card and you acquire a temporary debt, but you earn enough to pay it in full at the end of the billing cycle, there is no deficit and you are not acquiring any debt.

What is a deficit? It's expenses being bigger than income. Therefore, obviously, both the expenses and the income are factors in its calculation.

Exactly, you said it yourself: don't spend money you don't have. But how do you get to not having that money? When your revenue drops. Which is what Trump's huge tax cut for the rich and for the corporations is doing; better proof, the deficit *is* mathematically growing, and that's just a fact, regardless of your denial.
Click to expand...

the deficit is money you are spending that you don't have that's why it's sometimes called the national debt.

Pretending it's different because you use different words doesn't make it different.
 
JasperL said:
Yes, off a lower baseline, thanks to the tax cuts. Revenues were roughly $200B or so less than without the tax cuts.



Trump's golf budget.



Tax cuts do NOT increase revenue. Anyone who seriously asserts it as a fact is 1) ignorant, or 2) lying. Tax cuts lower revenue - last year about $200B, and roughly $1,500 billion over the 10 year period. One of our biggest problems is right wingers believe lies about the impact of tax cuts. Makes having productive discussions about fiscal policy difficult when one side believes things that are just not true.

And math tells us that deficits are impacted by both tax revenues and spending, and world history tells us we can easily fund current spending levels by raising taxes. All it takes is the will to do it.
Click to expand...
We've had this discussion several times in the past, I'm not interested in reprising it.
 
Luther said:
Yep, and that goes for the Trump agenda(wink)
Click to expand...
I've been criticizing excessive government spending for decades; it's a bipartisan problem.
 
GreatNews2night said:
He had to spend to stop a catastrophic recession inherited from George W. Bush (who actually was the one who started that spending right before leaving office, given that even that dumbass new that it had to be done - or probably he didn't know zip but someone with some sense advised him; Obama then continued it) which might have been the worst in history, even above the 1930's, so, yeah, Obama had to spend and the economy did start recovering under him at the end of his two terms, which is just a fact (although Trump took credit for the continuation of that).

But sure, I can respect a fiscal conservative... The problem is, that's not what the Tea Party was made of, as proven by the fact that as soon as the black guy left office, they went silent, regardless of the fact that the whitish orange guy who followed him started poking huge deficit holes in the economy.

I mean, it's crystal-clear. You can deny it as much as you want (Trumpers are experts in denial; if Trump shot someone by daylight on 5th avenue, etc.), but your denial won't change the facts.
Click to expand...
LOL, the recession ended five months after he took office; the trillion dollar deficits continued for four years. Between the time Obama was elected and he took office Bush was a lame duck with very little support. Whatever spending occurred during that time came from money appropriated by the Democrat controlled Congress, and, yes, Bush still signed the bills. Have I mentioned that Obama's recovery was the worst one since WW II? So that spending did squat.
 
GreatNews2night said:
Well, if that were true, they'd be going berserk right now against Donald Trump and his hugely escalating deficit, right? Do you care to guess why they're absolutely silent about it? Hint: Donald Trump may be orange, but he ain't black.
Click to expand...
Yadda, yadda, Trump. :roll: Does your thinking on every issue end with the word "Trump". And the stupidity of blaming Obama "just because he's black" is total bull****. I criticized Bush II for his weakness on spending control, too.
 
Bullseye said:
We've had this discussion several times in the past, I'm not interested in reprising it.
Click to expand...

Me neither, so it's a mystery why you keep making the false claims about tax cuts increasing revenue. If it were true, fiscal policy would be simple. We have a deficit, so cut taxes MORE and the additional revenue will start flowing in, lowering deficits. If that doesn't work, cut taxes again!

Only problem is when we cut taxes in real life, revenue drops and deficits go UP, as math and common sense tell us will happen, and CBO and the JCT tell us will happen, and all economists agree with happen, and the results show. There is no tax free lunch, no tax Santa Clause.
 
CLAX1911 said:
no it doesn't spending money you don't have creates deficit. if you want to go with us some of their phony-baloney math that changes that rule do it at your own peril.
Click to expand...

The point is simple enough - if you want to lower deficits, make them smaller, there are in fact THREE broad options:

1) Raise taxes,
2) Cut spending, or
3) Both.

They all work. You're taking two of the three options off the table for no reason.
 
JasperL said:
Me neither, so it's a mystery why you keep making the false claims about tax cuts increasing revenue. If it were true, fiscal policy would be simple. We have a deficit, so cut taxes MORE and the additional revenue will start flowing in, lowering deficits. If that doesn't work, cut taxes again!

Only problem is when we cut taxes in real life, revenue drops and deficits go UP, as math and common sense tell us will happen, and CBO and the JCT tell us will happen, and all economists agree with happen, and the results show. There is no tax free lunch, no tax Santa Clause.
Click to expand...
This is laughable. You're grasp of taxation and economics in general is so weak.
 
CLAX1911 said:
the deficit is money you are spending that you don't have that's why it's sometimes called the national debt.

Pretending it's different because you use different words doesn't make it different.
Click to expand...

Nope. Get informed. The deficit is the difference between expenses and revenue. It does contribute to the debt, but the debt can be incurred and increased in other ways, such as borrowing to pay interests on the debt. They are not exactly the same.

Debt and deficit are only synonymous in the minds of simpletons.
 
Bullseye said:
LOL, the recession ended five months after he took office; the trillion dollar deficits continued for four years. Between the time Obama was elected and he took office Bush was a lame duck with very little support. Whatever spending occurred during that time came from money appropriated by the Democrat controlled Congress, and, yes, Bush still signed the bills. Have I mentioned that Obama's recovery was the worst one since WW II? So that spending did squat.
Click to expand...

You don't know what would have happened without that spending.

Who do you think you are fooling? You'd be applauding what Obama did and bashing what Trump is doing if they had switched their strategies.

You don't applaud or bash because of any knowledge of macro-economics (which you've demonstrated that you don't possess). You applaud or bash exclusively because of the name of the president attached to the strategies.
 
JasperL said:
The point is simple enough - if you want to lower deficits, make them smaller, there are in fact THREE broad options:

1) Raise taxes,
2) Cut spending, or
3) Both.

They all work. You're taking two of the three options off the table for no reason.
Click to expand...

When you are spending money you don't have you need to cut spending.

That's as simple as it gets none of your reframing of this will change that.

you keep trying to make this more complicated than it is and I think that you're doing that out of dishonesty. Mostly because you know what cut spending means.
 
GreatNews2night said:
You don't know what would have happened without that spending.

Who do you think you are fooling? You'd be applauding what Obama did and bashing what Trump is doing if they had switched their strategies.

You don't applaud or bash because of any knowledge of macro-economics (which you've demonstrated that you don't possess). You applaud or bash exclusively because of the name of the president attached to the strategies.
Click to expand...
All you is personal attacks and insults? And you're claiming Obama HAD to spend that money? Unemployment when Obama took office was 7.8%; four years later when he was inaugurated for his second term it was 8.0% - a real economic genius at work. :roll:

But, yeah, IF Obama had cut taxes and regulations I'd give him props. And if Trump hiked taxes, I would criticize him.
 
Bullseye said:
This is laughable. You're grasp of taxation and economics in general is so weak.
Click to expand...

Yeah, OK, guess I should ask for a refund for my Econ degree from UVA and my MAcc, tax, from UTK. Also, please cite some economists to back up your claim that I'm somehow wrong. Should be interesting. Or maybe you can cite CBO or JCT! They estimate the impacts of tax bills - what did they have to say? Those estimates are prepared by economists, using sophisticated econometrics, but what do they know, amirite, they're just professional economists?
 
CLAX1911 said:
When you are spending money you don't have you need to cut spending.
Click to expand...

Raising taxes works, too.

That's as simple as it gets none of your reframing of this will change that.
Click to expand...

Correct it is simple and it's ONE of THREE options...

you keep trying to make this more complicated than it is and I think that you're doing that out of dishonesty. Mostly because you know what cut spending means.
Click to expand...

I'm actually keeping it simple enough for Dummies.
 
CaughtInThe said:
Our deficit is soaring. Why did they fall silent after Obama??


View attachment 67271962
Click to expand...

Someone told them they'd named themselves after a passel of liberals and activists and 18th century ANTIFA equivalents and they slunk away to outer darkness to wail and gnash their teeth.
 
Bullseye said:
All you is personal attacks and insults? And you're claiming Obama HAD to spend that money? Unemployment when Obama took office was 7.8%; four years later when he was inaugurated for his second term it was 8.0% - a real economic genius at work. :roll:

But, yeah, IF Obama had cut taxes and regulations I'd give him props. And if Trump hiked taxes, I would criticize him.
Click to expand...

Obama did cut taxes. It was part of the stimulus package. Look it up.

Also, too:

5.8.18.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom