• 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!

Deficit-swelling Trump White House plans to use deficit against Democrats

Conservative said:
So then debt service which is the fourth largest item in the budget and growing isn't a problem for you and bad use of taxpayer money?
Click to expand...

If you want to address the statement you've decided to quote, by all means. I'm not gong to play your 20 strawman questions game.
 
Kushinator said:
If you want to address the statement you've decided to quote, by all means. I'm not gong to play your 20 strawman questions game.
Click to expand...

No, actually it is a waste of time dealing with someone who has zero personnel skills and refuses to answer direct questions. The question is quite clear as are the follow up questions. Not surprised that you refuse to answer any direct questions so just go back to your name calling and baiting
 
Conservative said:
So then debt service which is the fourth largest item in the budget and growing isn't a problem for you and bad use of taxpayer money? Any idea what your federal bureaucrats could do with that money or better yet what the people could do with it?

Is there some reason that you believe 44% of income earning Americans shouldn't be paying something towards the cost of the federal gov't? Do I need to post the line items in the budget again for you to see what your taxes fund?

I find it quite telling how you and MTA have no problem with all this spending in the name of compassion yet how that spending created nothing but dependence and never solved a social problem? Giving the federal bureaucrats more money may may make you feel good but what purpose does it serve vs. letting it remain with the taxpayers to benefit the state and local economies and gov't?

Any idea why the disconnect between you and MTA vs. the American people?

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Trump Job Approval - Economy
Click to expand...

Trump has the lowest approval rating of any modern president. It's 42.6 approve, 53.9% disapprove.
Regarding Trump's Job Approval -on the Economy, of 52.0/43.8, Obama (who you hate) had a 57.0% approval, 39.0% disapproval rating on the economy
 
MTAtech said:
Trump has the lowest approval rating of any modern president. It's 42.6 approve, 53.9% disapprove.
Regarding Trump's Job Approval -on the Economy, of 52.0/43.8, Obama (who you hate) had a 57.0% approval, 39.0% disapproval rating on the economy
Click to expand...

Keep ignoring the questions posed to you and by all means keep posting nothing but negatives as you aren't giving anyone a reason other than hatred of Trump to support the Democratic Party. The results certainly don't warrant support nor does all the negativity you spout. Your party offers nothing but investigate, class envy, Jealousy, and chaos. You have posted nothing positive at all or offered any solutions to the problems in this country. you have also totally ignored the actual data and results generated.

Hope you keep running on all that negativity as the results don't reconcile with it and IMO the American will vote on their pocketbook issues as well as being tired of the 24/7 Trump bashing without offering an alternative economic policy. You seem to need to like someone regardless of results but results matter not personality.

By the way noticed you never posted a date on those polling numbers you posted so let me help with the 2011 polls regarding the economy

Obama Job Approval Average Slides to New Low in 11th Quarter
 
Last edited:
MTAtech said:
Trump has the lowest approval rating of any modern president. It's 42.6 approve, 53.9% disapprove.
Regarding Trump's Job Approval -on the Economy, of 52.0/43.8, Obama (who you hate) had a 57.0% approval, 39.0% disapproval rating on the economy
Click to expand...

Oh, by the way, I never hated Obama, but did hate his policies just like most Americans. You see I prefer results to personality but would like both. Problem is your party never focuses on results but simply spreads hatred. Obama had a good personality, good family man but unqualified for the job with no private sector experience. I gave you the poll numbers for the economy which continued to slide throughout his term and ever saw candidates running away from policies in 2014 and 2016. You wouldn't know that however because you were so enamored with his personality that you ignored his results. We are a private sector economy and the last thing we need is someone like Obama and Hillary who are clueless
 
Conservative said:
No, actually it is a waste of time dealing with someone who has zero personnel skills
Click to expand...

Another personal attack noted. It's what you do when you've lost the debate. I'm not going to answer your pointless questions, because they have absolutely zero bearing on the discussion. If you'd like to address my post, nobody is stopping you except yourself.
 
MTAtech said:
Trump has the lowest approval rating of any modern president. It's 42.6 approve, 53.9% disapprove.
Click to expand...

Nixon has the lowest approval rating of any modern President (since 1970) at 24, with Truman being the post WWII leader coming in @ 22, and Bush 43 is third lowest with 26% during the fallout of the Lehman bankruptcy.
 
jonny5 said:
Obamas was 42.5 in 2014

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval
Click to expand...
Kushinator said:
Nixon has the lowest approval rating of any modern President (since 1970) at 24, with Truman being the post WWII leader coming in @ 22, and Bush 43 is third lowest with 26% during the fallout of the Lehman bankruptcy.
Click to expand...
To maintain credibility, I endeavor to be factual. Sometimes I miss. This was one of those cases in which I was incorrect. Thanks for pointing it out.
 
MTAtech said:
To maintain credibility, I endeavor to be factual. Sometimes I miss. This was one of those cases in which I was incorrect. Thanks for pointing it out.
Click to expand...

You were also wrong regarding the Obama approval rating with regards to the economy two years into his Administration and totally ignored what it was closer to the 2016 elections.

You also haven't posted any proposals as solutions to the problem of the deficit in this country as you continue to blame Trump for swelling deficits that were up 17% last year due to 4 interest rate hikes and entitlement spending increases.

Ignoring the revenue growth is another issue but at least in this post you admitted being wrong as that is a good start, congratulations!
 
SmartCat said:
Republicans used that argument to absolve Reagan of his guilt for the tripling of the national debt that occurred because he cut taxes and raised military spending.

Regardless of what the Constitution says, the President takes the lead in fiscal policy. The president presents Congress with a budget that combines taxing and spending policy. Congress adds and subtracts, and sends the budget back to the President, who can sign it or veto it.
Click to expand...

Revenue nearly doubled under Reagan, from 600bn a year to 1 trillion. Defense spending certainly went up, from 150bn to 300bn, but mandatory spending went up more, from 301bn to 485bn.

So it wasnt tax cuts or defense spending that tripled the debt. We collected more than enough revenue to pay for defense spending and more. It was, as always, the ever increasing spending on healthcare, which doubled under Reagan (and the democrat congress).
 
MTAtech said:
To maintain credibility, I endeavor to be factual. Sometimes I miss. This was one of those cases in which I was incorrect. Thanks for pointing it out.
Click to expand...

At least we can all agree Nixon sucked.
 
jonny5 said:
Revenue nearly doubled under Reagan, from 600bn a year to 1 trillion. Defense spending certainly went up, from 150bn to 300bn, but mandatory spending went up more, from 301bn to 485bn.

So it wasnt tax cuts or defense spending that tripled the debt. We collected more than enough revenue to pay for defense spending and more. It was, as always, the ever increasing spending on healthcare, which doubled under Reagan (and the democrat congress).
Click to expand...

Tax revenue usually increases from one year to the next because of economic growth and inflation. Tax revenue usually increases more when tax rates remain stable when then tax rates decline, and still more when tax rates rise.

A factor that harmed the Carter economy while it helped the Reagan economy was fluctuations in the world price of petroleum. Neither president had much control over that. The world price of petroleum rose under Carter. It began to decline after 1982. Neither president had much control over that.

Did government spending for health care really double? I do not remember the 1980's as a time of new initiatives in domestic spending. Even if it did, I would rather the government spend money saving lives than killing people.
 
jonny5 said:
Revenue nearly doubled under Reagan, from 600bn a year to 1 trillion. Defense spending certainly went up, from 150bn to 300bn, but mandatory spending went up more, from 301bn to 485bn.

So it wasnt tax cuts or defense spending that tripled the debt. We collected more than enough revenue to pay for defense spending and more. It was, as always, the ever increasing spending on healthcare, which doubled under Reagan (and the democrat congress).
Click to expand...
This was answered by my favorite economist, back in 2008:

Reagan and revenue

I couldn’t have asked for a better example of why it’s important to correct for inflation and population growth, both of which tend to make revenues grow regardless of tax policy.

Actually, federal revenues rose 80 percent in dollar terms from 1980 to 1988. And numbers like that (sometimes they play with the dates) are thrown around by Reagan hagiographers all the time.

But real revenues per capita grew only 19 percent over the same period — better than the likely Bush performance, but still nothing exciting. In fact, it’s less than revenue growth in the period 1972-1980 (24 percent) and much less than the amazing 41 percent gain from 1992 to 2000.

Is it really possible that all the triumphant declarations that the Reagan tax cuts led to a revenue boom — declarations that you see in highly respectable places — are based on nothing but a failure to make the most elementary corrections for inflation and population growth? Yes, it is. I know we’re supposed to pretend that we’re having a serious discussion in this country; but the truth is that we aren’t.
Click to expand...
 
jonny5 said:
Revenue nearly doubled under Reagan, from 600bn a year to 1 trillion. Defense spending certainly went up, from 150bn to 300bn, but mandatory spending went up more, from 301bn to 485bn.

So it wasnt tax cuts or defense spending that tripled the debt. We collected more than enough revenue to pay for defense spending and more. It was, as always, the ever increasing spending on healthcare, which doubled under Reagan (and the democrat congress).
Click to expand...
Reagan did not have a DEM controlled Congress from 1981 to 1987 the Republicans controlled the Senate
1981 to 1983 it was 46 Dems and 53 republicans
1983 to 1985 it was 46 dems to 54 reps.
1985 to 1987 it was 47 Dems to 53 reps.
Have a nice day
 
Tbird19482 said:
Reagan did not have a DEM controlled Congress from 1981 to 1987 the Republicans controlled the Senate
1981 to 1983 it was 46 Dems and 53 republicans
1983 to 1985 it was 46 dems to 54 reps.
1985 to 1987 it was 47 Dems to 53 reps.
Have a nice day
Click to expand...

Awesome so how many votes does it take to get legislation passed in the Senate? As for the Reagan record any idea how he garnered 10 million more votes, 49 states in 1984 vs 1980 whereas Obama lost 4 million votes in 2012 vs 2008? Seems there is a disconnect here with reality from you as usual. You have a nice day but wish some of it would be spent researching data and stop letting the left indoctrinate you making you look foolish.
 
Tbird19482 said:
Reagan did not have a DEM controlled Congress from 1981 to 1987 the Republicans controlled the Senate
1981 to 1983 it was 46 Dems and 53 republicans
1983 to 1985 it was 46 dems to 54 reps.
1985 to 1987 it was 47 Dems to 53 reps.
Have a nice day
Click to expand...

Democrat House then. And Senate in 87-89. Democrats passed those tax and spending bills while Reagan was President or they wouldnt be law.
 
MTAtech said:
This was answered by my favorite economist, back in 2008:

Reagan and revenue
Click to expand...

It doesnt matter. Tax cuts were blamed for the defict, but revenue went up. Defense spending was blamed for the deficit, but social spending went up even more.

But real revenues per capita grew only 19 percent over the same period

GREW
 
SmartCat said:
Tax revenue usually increases from one year to the next because of economic growth and inflation. Tax revenue usually increases more when tax rates remain stable when then tax rates decline, and still more when tax rates rise.

A factor that harmed the Carter economy while it helped the Reagan economy was fluctuations in the world price of petroleum. Neither president had much control over that. The world price of petroleum rose under Carter. It began to decline after 1982. Neither president had much control over that.

Did government spending for health care really double? I do not remember the 1980's as a time of new initiatives in domestic spending. Even if it did, I would rather the government spend money saving lives than killing people.
Click to expand...

Tax revenue actually stays about the same, no matter the rates. About 18% of GDP, and it did during Reagan

1981 19.1
1982 18.6
1983 17.0
1984 16.9
1985 17.2
1986 17.0
1987 17.9
1988 17.7
1989 17.8

Point is, it wasnt revenue or defense spending that added to the debt under Reagan. It was out of control mandatory spending, as it has been since the New Deal. Medicare doubled, Medicaid doubled. And I would rather the govt spend money saving lives too, from violence, not nature.
 
jonny5 said:
It doesnt matter. Tax cuts were blamed for the defict, but revenue went up. Defense spending was blamed for the deficit, but social spending went up even more.

But real revenues per capita grew only 19 percent over the same period

GREW
Click to expand...
The nation went from recession to growth. Not getting any revenue increase would have been surprising regardless of tax policy.

To credit tax-cut for revenue growth is absurd. Remember, although the Reagan team expected immediate revenue growth, what they got was immediate revenue decline, to the point that Reagan increased taxes in later years. The 1981 tax-cut reduced revenue by about 9% in the first couple of years.
 
jonny5 said:
Tax revenue actually stays about the same, no matter the rates. About 18% of GDP, and it did during Reagan

1981 19.1
1982 18.6
1983 17.0
1984 16.9
1985 17.2
1986 17.0
1987 17.9
1988 17.7
1989 17.8

Point is, it wasnt revenue or defense spending that added to the debt under Reagan. It was out of control mandatory spending, as it has been since the New Deal. Medicare doubled, Medicaid doubled. And I would rather the govt spend money saving lives too, from violence, not nature.
Click to expand...

Domestic spending programs are popular with the voters. That is why Republican politicians never advocate specific cuts in them while they are campaigning. It is why Republican politicians rarely try to cut them when elected.
 
MTAtech said:
The nation went from recession to growth. Not getting any revenue increase would have been surprising regardless of tax policy.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. The claim was made that tax cuts caused deficits. Clearly they didnt. As always, SPENDING too much did. And he didnt raise tax rates. He simplified taxes, which broadened the base thus raising more taxes from everyone.

chart_reagan_taxes5.top.gif
 
Last edited:
SmartCat said:
Domestic spending programs are popular with the voters. That is why Republican politicians never advocate specific cuts in them while they are campaigning. It is why Republican politicians rarely try to cut them when elected.
Click to expand...

Of course. Republican politicians (and democrat) are just a reflection of the people who elect them. Those people want lots of stuff and dont want to pay for it, and worse, want 1% of the people to pay for it. Who wouldnt want to use the force of the govt to take from the rich to buy things for themselves?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom