Democrats does not want to make America great again!

[Conservative]

Of course they do. Does common decency have any meaning to a Trump supporter?

What you continue to show is how easy it is to indoctrinate people, what common decency has the Democrats shown since 2016 and it is ok to lie about the detention centers the border to make political points? You say Trump supporters lack common decency, I am a Trump supporter because the alternative is much worse but have never been charged with lacking decency. Care to give me examples that are verifiable?

 

[MTAtech]

And you are a democrat liberal communist can't take debate

Only thing you jackasses can do is to insult someone who don't think or like what you do!

Funny you democrats says republicans are "racists" but you are truly a racist

As you can tell from the left side, I have nearly 17,000 posts, which means that I debate. What you offered wasn't debate but merely stating assertions that Democrats are responsible for a 20 gazillion dollar debt, with nothing to back up your assertion. That's not debate.

When faced with this reality, you resort to name-calling.

 

[joko104]

Democrats -TAX AND SPEND
Republicans - BORROW AND SPEND

The National Debt does not increase when the taxes are raised to pay for the spending.
The Democratic way IS fiscally responsible.

Wouldn't you like to a least pretend there is any intellectual integrity in your messages? DEMOCRAT Obama increased the national debt more than all other presidents before him combined.

The Democratic Party LOVES unlimited national debt because all the interest on it goes to their super rich corporate employers that Democratic politicians are whores and traitors for - and to harm Americans and the USA as much as possible as punishment. Listen to Democratic candidates now and they are promising to increase the national debt by hundreds of trillions of dollars. ANYTHING to get as much wealth to the world's richest people while destroying the USA in the process. The Democrat politicians got themselves covers so will enjoy destroying Americans.

 

[middling]

Wouldn't you like to a least pretend there is any intellectual integrity in your messages? DEMOCRAT Obama increased the national debt more than all other presidents before him combined.

The Democratic Party LOVES unlimited national debt because all the interest on it goes to their super rich corporate employers that Democratic politicians are whores and traitors for - and to harm Americans and the USA as much as possible as punishment. Listen to Democratic candidates now and they are promising to increase the national debt by hundreds of trillions of dollars. ANYTHING to get as much wealth to the world's richest people while destroying the USA in the process. The Democrat politicians got themselves covers so will enjoy destroying Americans.

Democrat Obama increased the National Debt with the help of a Republican Congress,
because the Rs felt guilty that Bush had screwed up the economy SO bad,
and because Obama wasn't putting the bankers in jail,
but mostly,
because Obama was solving Bush's screw up,
in a "conservative" manner.

 

[PTF]

with $20000 trillions in debt

Why does democrats not want to put americans first?

Why does democrats not want to make America great again?

To answer your first question the liberal/Demos do not care about us,how we live and how we worship.liberal/Demos do not care about our jobs and willingly send them to Mexico or hire illegals at 2 dollars and hour by taking our jobs
To answer your second question the liberal/Demos wants us to be second class country with no economic growth,abortions,atheism and same sex marriages. Rest assure there is no way a liberal/Demo will be elected in 2020 with all they are against us.

 

[Vadinho]

with $20000 trillions in debt

Why does democrats not want to put americans first?

Why does democrats not want to make America great again?

Would America be great if we had no debt? If so, ask yourself if America was great in the 1980s. If you say yes, then you do not care about debt do you?

 

[Conservative]

Would America be great if we had no debt? If so, ask yourself if America was great in the 1980s. If you say yes, then you do not care about debt do you?

As with most liberals you have no understanding of return on investment and exactly what happened in the 80's but buy what the left tells you because that is what you want to believe. It is amazing how the 1.7 trillion Reagan added to the debt is demonized but the 9.3 trillion Obama added is ignored. Why is that? Reagan left the country with debt to GDP of 52%, Obama well over 100%

This thread is about making America Great Again and you don't do that by adding to the massive central gov't, grow federal bureaucratic power, spending in the name of compassion, promoting open borders and sanctuary cities. What exactly has Trump generated that doesn't make America Great AGAIN?

 

[Vadinho]

As with most liberals you have no understanding of return on investment and exactly what happened in the 80's but buy what the left tells you because that is what you want to believe. It is amazing how the 1.7 trillion Reagan added to the debt is demonized but the 9.3 trillion Obama added is ignored. Why is that? Reagan left the country with debt to GDP of 52%, Obama well over 100%

This thread is about making America Great Again and you don't do that by adding to the massive central gov't, grow federal bureaucratic power, spending in the name of compassion, promoting open borders and sanctuary cities. What exactly has Trump generated that doesn't make America Great AGAIN?

As with most conservatives, you have no business preaching to us about sovereign debt or Republican investments in rich people. As has been said before, GFYS.

 

[Conservative]

Which was as required by the Bush Depression.

Bush depression? how did this recession which was a financial recession affect you and your family? You bought the rhetoric and marketing term Great Recession and have yet to post data supporting your claim as if you did, most of the data during the Bush Administration EXCEED Obama's numbers

 

[Conservative]

As with most conservatives, you have no business preaching to us about sovereign debt or Republican investments in rich people. As has been said before, GFYS.

And you have no business in a debate forum failing to use data to support your claims. Your opinions and rhetoric will never win a debate or a court case, results do!! It is amazing how keeping more of what one earns is now a gift from the federal bureaucrats as if the money these people are keeping was given to them by the bureaucrats. I really am amazed at how poor the education system has become

 

[Tbird19482]

And you have no business in a debate forum failing to use data to support your claims. Your opinions and rhetoric will never win a debate or a court case, results do!! It is amazing how keeping more of what one earns is now a gift from the federal bureaucrats as if the money these people are keeping was given to them by the bureaucrats. I really am amazed at how poor the education system has become

OH again you say people should be able to keep more of what they earn yet YOU want to tax the people on the low end and give tax cuts to the people on the high end
What YOU should be saying is we should let the people in the top 50% keep more of their earnings and take more away from the lower 50%
have a nice day

 

[SmartCat]

The only way to reduce the debt is to spend less than you take in. As I recall the Dems did no better reducing the debt than have the Republicans.

Bill Clinton reduced the debt by raising taxes on the rich. I like that way much better. So do most Americans.

 

[Conservative]

OH again you say people should be able to keep more of what they earn yet YOU want to tax the people on the low end and give tax cuts to the people on the high end
What YOU should be saying is we should let the people in the top 50% keep more of their earnings and take more away from the lower 50%
have a nice day

Please stop the leftwing bull****, it never has been about the 44% who aren't paying ANY FEDERAL INCOME TAXES it has always been about you demanding that the rich and corporations pick up the slack. Before penalizing companies and people who do pay taxes by raising theirs get something from those who don't pay any FIT. Seems like a rather simple concept to understand but apparently not. Every time I read one of your posts I get disgusted with the education system that created such ignorance.

 

[Conservative]

Bill Clinton reduced the debt by raising taxes on the rich. I like that way much better. So do most Americans.

No Bill Clinton added 1.4 trillion to the debt but like most liberals you don't even understand that the debt has two parts, public and inter-government holdings(SS and Medicare plus other federal pension expenses) Robbing the SS and Medicare Trust fund to make the public debt look better is what the left has sold you and you totally ignored that left a hole in the trust fund and increased the debt. Why is this so hard for you radicals to understand?

 

[cabse5]

The Democratic Party promises to raise the national debt to $200 Trillion. Free medical care. Free college. $100 Trillion to force people to live in tents. Free housing. Free food. Free income for everyone...
... and free everything not just for Americans, but for all 7 Billion people on earth - to be paid for by debt spending, leading to hyper inflation wiping out everyone's savings and for which a roll of toilet paper will cost $500.

Most everybody's to blame for the national debt rising. When the freedom caucus, for example, bemoans the rising of the national debt, they are called anti-American. For the American debt to be addressed, a majority of American people will have to believe the debt needs to be addressed.

 

[SmartCat]

No Bill Clinton added 1.4 trillion to the debt but like most liberals you don't even understand that the debt has two parts, public and inter-government holdings(SS and Medicare plus other federal pension expenses) Robbing the SS and Medicare Trust fund to make the public debt look better is what the left has sold you and you totally ignored that left a hole in the trust fund and increased the debt. Why is this so hard for you radicals to understand?

Fact Check, The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton
By Brooks Jackson

Posted on February 3, 2008 | Updated on February 11, 2008

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.


FULL ANSWER

This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton’s predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.



The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.

Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton - FactCheck.org

 

[Bullseye]

Bill Clinton reduced the debt by raising taxes on the rich. I like that way much better. So do most Americans.

Actually, he enjoyed his greatest economic success in the late 90's when he reduced taxes - that's when he saw surpluses. Oh, and had adult supervision in Congress, e.g. GOP in control of both houses.


You might find this interesting.

Second, Messrs. Carville and Greenberg are contradicted by their former boss. Speaking at a fund raiser in 1995, President Clinton said: "Probably there are people in this room still mad at me at that budget because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too."

I won't quote the long discussion of the benefits and positive economic activity following Clinton's tax reductions - you can read that for yourself.

 

[SmartCat]

Actually, he enjoyed his greatest economic success in the late 90's when he reduced taxes - that's when he saw surpluses. Oh, and had adult supervision in Congress, e.g. GOP in control of both houses.


You might find this interesting.


I won't quote the long discussion of the benefits and positive economic activity following Clinton's tax reductions - you can read that for yourself.

In 1993 President Clinton raised the top tax rate from 31% to 39.6%. It remained there as long as he was president.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf

 

[jimbo]

What have the Republicans done to reduce the debt? The debt has only gone up under Trump.

If you cared about the debt you'd be calling out both sides for their reckless spending. As you're not, you're obviously only interested in partisanship, not solutions. Why do you hate America?

I call out both sides for their reckless spending. And both sides are equally guilty. Neither side has any interest in reducing spending.

 

[Bullseye]

In 1993 President Clinton raised the top tax rate from 31% to 39.6%. It remained there as long as he was president.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf

Did you read my link? Clinton said that was too much.

 

[Bullseye]

In 1993 President Clinton raised the top tax rate from 31% to 39.6%. It remained there as long as he was president.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf

Again - read my link.

One of the most dangerous myths that has infected the current debate over the direction of tax policy is the oft repeated claim that the tax increases under President Bill Clinton led to the boom of the 1990s. In their Wall Street Journal Op-Ed last Friday, for example, Clinton campaign manager James Carville and Democratic pollster and Clinton advisor Stanley Greenberg write the increase in the top tax rate to 39.6% “produced the one period of shared prosperity in this past era (since 1980).”


While this myth is now a central part of liberal Democratic folklore, it is contradicted by the political disaster and poor economic results that followed the tax increase. The real lesson of the Clinton Presidency is the way back to prosperity lies not through increased taxes on “the rich,” but through tax and regulatory reform and a return to a rules based monetary policy that produces a strong and stable dollar.

The boom was on. Between the end of 1996 and the end of 2000:
Economic growth accelerated a full percentage point to 4.2% a year.
Employment growth nudged higher, to 2.1 million jobs per year as the unemployment rate fell to 4.0% from 5.4%.
As the tax rate on capital gains came down, real wages made their biggest advance since the implementation of the Reagan tax rate reductions in the mid 1980s. Real average hourly earnings were (in 1982 dollars) $7.43 in 1996, $7.55 in 1997, $7.75 in 1998, $7.86 in 1999, and $7.89 in 2000.
Millions of Americans shared in the prosperity as the value of their 401(k)s climbed along with the stock market, which saw the price of the S&P 500 index rise 78%.
Revenue growth accelerated an astounding 59%, increasing on average $143 billion a year. Combined with continued restraint on government spending, that produced a $198 billion budget surplus.

 

[Conservative]

Fact Check, The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton
By Brooks Jackson

Posted on February 3, 2008 | Updated on February 11, 2008

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.


FULL ANSWER

This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton’s predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.



The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.

Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton - FactCheck.org

View attachment 67260330

I have no idea what is wrong with you people but the deficit is made up of two parts, Public debt and Inter Gov't holdings. you focus on public debt which was balanced or close to it because of "borrowing" from SS and Medicare leaving that category with higher debt. Clinton added 1.4 trillion to the debt according to the Treasury Dept. and that is what matters. Are you ever going to put data into context?

 

[Conservative]

Fact Check, The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton
By Brooks Jackson

Posted on February 3, 2008 | Updated on February 11, 2008

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.


FULL ANSWER

This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton’s predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.



The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.

Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton - FactCheck.org

View attachment 67260330

Do you not understand that we pay debt service on Treasury Data NOT CBO data? Why don't you call Treasury and tell them that Clinton didn't add to the debt?

The Clinton Surplus Myth - Craig Steiner

Are you mature enough to admit when wrong?

 

[SmartCat]

Again - read my link.

I am not surprised that you do not like Clinton's tax increase for the rich. It led to seven years of low inflation job creation. The national debt declined every year until Clinton left office with budget surpluses.

 

[SmartCat]

Do you not understand that we pay debt service on Treasury Data NOT CBO data? Why don't you call Treasury and tell them that Clinton didn't add to the debt?

The Clinton Surplus Myth - Craig Steiner

Are you mature enough to admit when wrong?

Are you mature enough to compose your own comments? Anyone can find something something they like on the internet, post a link to it, and say, "Click on this. It proves I am right."

Clinton left office with budget surpluses because he raised taxes on the rich while cutting military spending. It is just that simple. If he had raised taxes on the rich even more the budget surplus would have been higher.