• 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!

They did it on purpose

Did Democrats cause the super committee to fail on purpose?

  • No, they actually thought a trillion dollar tax hike in a recession was reasonable

    Votes: 5 12.5%

  • No, it was a bi-partisan failure

    Votes: 25 62.5%

  • Yes, the plan from the beginning was to fail

    Votes: 10 25.0%
  • Total voters
    40
whysoserious said:
You don't know the equation to figure out gross income? In fact, apdst, if you can fine me one equation about income/loss that does not at some point include revenue, I'll concede. But considering that is impossible, you'll be looking for a long time (hopefully away from this board).
Click to expand...

That's how you figure gross income?

I didn't know you needed an equation to figure gross income. :lamo

I'm sorry, dude, but that's some funny stuff right there.
 
Karl said:
Well, yes, you pointed that out, but you failed to make any cogent argument to support it. All you've presented is a coincidence.

Bush was elected president, then Al Qaeda attacked on 9/11. Can I point out that Bush's election caused 9/11?
Click to expand...

How much more revenue has Obama's economic plan generated? I bet Obama would give his right nut to be able to brag that he increased tax revenues a measly 28%.
 
apdst said:
That's how you figure gross income?

I didn't know you needed an equation to figure gross income. :lamo

I'm sorry, dude, but that's some funny stuff right there.
Click to expand...

Oh Jesus. I am not sure why I continue bothering with this.

apdst, can you please show us all the equation for deficit or surplus? Again, if you can find an equation for deficit/surplus that does not include revenue, I'll leave you alone about this.
 
whysoserious said:
Oh Jesus. I am not sure why I continue bothering with this.

apdst, can you please show us all the equation for deficit or surplus? Again, if you can find an equation for deficit/surplus that does not include revenue, I'll leave you alone about this.
Click to expand...

I don't either. You need to take some time and learn the difference between gross revenue and net income, then come back and get on you high horse.
 
apdst said:
How much more revenue has Obama's economic plan generated? [...]
Click to expand...
Ah! Changing the subject, hmmm?

Don't blame you ;)
 
apdst said:
I don't either. You need to take some time and learn the difference between gross revenue and net income, then come back and get on you high horse.
Click to expand...

Well I didn't want to use net income, because net income requires taking out taxes. I should have said net revenues, but either way you are distracting from the point because of a minor faux pas. Show an equation for deficit or surplus, or quit making up nonsense such as "Tax cuts have nothing to do with deficit spending."
 
Thunder said:
[...] oh, and btw, how was revenue in 2002? 2003? 2004? 2005? 2006?

look at those numbers, and you will get sick to your stomach.
Click to expand...
I just happen to have those numbers handy....


FedReceiptsUpdate.jpg


Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary​
 
Karl said:
Ah! Changing the subject, hmmm?

Don't blame you ;)
Click to expand...

I thought the subject was taxes and deficit spending. I guess Obama is immune from any kind of criticism, as usual.
 
rocket88 said:
If this is what Republicans actually believe in, why were there no big budget cuts when they controlled Congress and the White House?

If you think the Republican Party has your best interests at heart, you are the one who's crazy.
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean back when the deficit was a couple hundred billion dollars? Why do you think Republicans stayed home in the 2006 elections? They were spending too much and the liars Pelosi and Reid actually said they were going to reduce wasteful spending. If only we had known.
 
apdst said:
I thought the subject was taxes and deficit spending. I guess Obama is immune from any kind of criticism, as usual.
Click to expand...
Mmmm.... don't want to talk about how those tax cuts killed revenue anymore, hmmm?
 
Thunder said:
Clinton increased revenue by 75%.

Bush increased revenue by 28%.

Your reaction?
Click to expand...

We had a surplus and a recession. You really think Bush should have kept increasing revenues at Clinton rates with a surplus and a recession?
 
friday said:
Oh, you mean back when the deficit was a couple hundred billion dollars? Why do you think Republicans stayed home in the 2006 elections? They were spending too much and the liars Pelosi and Reid actually said they were going to reduce wasteful spending. If only we had known.
Click to expand...

Yeah, when the deficit was a couple hundred billion. Why didn't they reduce spending when they could?
 
Thunder said:
Clinton increased revenue by 75%.

Bush increased revenue by 28%.

Your reaction?
Click to expand...

Bush put more money in the coffers. 2.57 trillion is a lot more than 2.02 trillion.
 
Karl said:
Mmmm.... don't want to talk about how those tax cuts killed revenue anymore, hmmm?
Click to expand...

Yeah, the tax cuts killed revenue so much that we hit all time record revenue generation. I say kill the hell out of it, if that's the case! :rofl
 
rocket88 said:
Yeah, when the deficit was a couple hundred billion. Why didn't they reduce spending when they could?
Click to expand...

I don't know, but that is why they lost in 2006 and why Republicans now are catering more to TEA party influences and we have good representatives and senators who want to reduce spending and get government under control, like Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Alan West, etc.
 
whysoserious said:
Well I didn't want to use net income, because net income requires taking out taxes. I should have said net revenues, but either way you are distracting from the point because of a minor faux pas. Show an equation for deficit or surplus, or quit making up nonsense such as "Tax cuts have nothing to do with deficit spending."
Click to expand...

I never asked you anything. You're the one trying to bust my balls with your silly little equations to figure gross income.

:lamo...I'm sorry, but I can't help bu LMAO when I think about that.
 
friday said:
We had a surplus and a recession. You really think Bush should have kept increasing revenues at Clinton rates with a surplus and a recession?
Click to expand...

I thought the right wing talking point was that the surplus was a myth.

OK, Bush's idea then was that we had "extra money" that should be given back. So taxes were lowered, and now there's not a lot of room to go lower to spur the economy in a recession. According to the Repbublicans, when times are good, lower taxes. When times are bad, lower taxes. Oh, and keep spending in the meantime.
 
Thunder said:
Clinton increased revenue by 75%.

Bush increased revenue by 28%.

Your reaction?
Click to expand...
One can call 2001 thru 2005 "the lost revenue years"... historically revenue increased nearly $100 billion per year during that time frame, which means starting 2006, when revenues finally began increasing again, we were nearly half trillion dollars behind the curve, and remain so today (e.g., the current $1.3 trillion deficit would only be $800 billion). Tragic.




growth-federal-spending-revenue-600-Clinton.jpg
 
apdst said:
Yeah, the tax cuts killed revenue so much that we hit all time record revenue generation....
Click to expand...

with Bush's tax-cuts, revenue increased an astounding 28%.....from when Bush was elected.

with Clinton's tax-increases for the 1%, revenue increased a measely 75%..from when he was elected.

Clearly, tax-increases are better for growing Federal revenue..than tax-cuts.
 
Last edited:
Karl said:
One can call 2001 thru 2005 "the lost revenue years"... historically revenue increased nearly $100 billion per year during that time frame, which means starting 2006, when revenues finally began increasing again, we were nearly half trillion dollars behind the curve, and remain so today (e.g., the current $1.3 trillion deficit would only be $800 billion). Tragic.




growth-federal-spending-revenue-600-Clinton.jpg
Click to expand...

Are you sure you want to use a graph that includes two years of Libbo ownership of the government?
 
Thunder said:
with Bush's tax-cuts, revenue increased an astounding 28%.....from when Bush was elected.

with Clinton's tax-increases for the 1%, revenue increased a measely 75%..from when he was elected.

Clearly, tax-increases are better for Federal revenue..than tax-cuts.
Click to expand...

So, you honestly think that tax rates are the lone factor? Are you going to show us another equation to figger gross revenue?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom