Trillion Doallr Deficit

[Conservative]

You'll notice I don't respond to most of what you post. And, that's because most of what you post is bull****.

That's because as you have shown with your leftwing bull**** that data confuses you. When you claim that Reagan who doubled GDP, created 17 million jobs, grew FIT revenue over 60% with three years of tax cuts and left us with debt at 52% of GDP then claiming that bankrupted us, just goes to show how intellectually challenged you are. Apparently data is bull**** to the left as you prefer being told what to think regardless of accuracy

 

[Waddy]

Deficits only mattered when Obama was president.

You are absolutely correct...to a point. When A Republican is in office, the Democrats get all twisted up over the debt. When a Democrat is in office the Republicans get all twisted up over the debt. Yet neither side is willing to rollback and programs near and dear to them. Both sides are hypocrites.

 

[calamity]

That's because as you have shown with your leftwing bull**** that data confuses you. When you claim that Reagan who doubled GDP, created 17 million jobs, grew FIT revenue over 60% with three years of tax cuts and left us with debt at 52% of GDP then claiming that bankrupted us, just goes to show how intellectually challenged you are. Apparently data is bull**** to the left as you prefer being told what to think regardless of accuracy

Reagan began the great divide between rich and poor, decimating the middle in the process. He also began the borrow and spend policies we see today.

 

[Conservative]

Reagan began the great divide between rich and poor, decimating the middle in the process. He also began the borrow and spend policies we see today.

Which is why he won 49 states in 1984. You are so full of leftwing opinions and total economic ignorance it is staggering. A true socialist who doesn't understand personal responsibility and always looking for someone to pay for your personal responsibility issues. It never is someone else's fault for their own personal income and personal expenses/responsibilities. Still no answer as to how he bankrupted us with debt at 52% of GDP, doubling the GDP, growing FIT revenue 60+% with three years of tax cuts, and creating a peace dividend. Typical leftwing rhetoric and false
Oh, by the way, where are the Obama numbers on that deficit chart?

 

[calamity]

Which is why he won 49 states in 1984. You are so full of leftwing opinions and total economic ignorance it is staggering. A true socialist who doesn't understand personal responsibility and always looking for someone to pay for your personal responsibility issues. It never is someone else's fault for their own personal income and personal expenses/responsibilities. Still no answer as to how he bankrupted us with debt at 52% of GDP, doubling the GDP, growing FIT revenue 60+% with three years of tax cuts, and creating a peace dividend. Typical leftwing rhetoric and false
Oh, by the way, where are the Obama numbers on that deficit chart?

See, more drivel. Dismissed.

 

[calamity]

You are absolutely correct...to a point. When A Republican is in office, the Democrats get all twisted up over the debt. When a Democrat is in office the Republicans get all twisted up over the debt. Yet neither side is willing to rollback and programs near and dear to them. Both sides are hypocrites.

Now we agree.

 

[Waddy]

Now we agree.

The difference between where the Republicans spend money is primarily for the benefit of the business community. Democrats spend on the needy. Both are worthy of attention.

ALL tax revenues derive from business as do ALL jobs. We need a healthy economy to provide the revenues for everything else. So I'm usually in favor of things that help small and large business. The recent business tax cut was necessary to bring us in line with other developed nations, makes us more competitive. I want business to be well regulated, but ALL regulations should be reviewed every five years (annually probably wouldn't be practical) and out-dated regulations purged from the books. Also, the approval process should be streamlined so business can react faster to changes in the market. A business shouldn't have to wait over a decade to get a decision. Tariffs and trade agreements need to be fair to American companies. We should be trying to protect American jobs. Especially good paying jobs. When we allow them to go offshore we put more people on government assistance and lower revenues even further. And our trade agreements should enforce environment laws, include labor rights, and comparable tax rates. It isn't fair that our companies here have to abide by all these regulations but our competition does not. So I am pro business.

We do have an obligation to help those in need. (We need a healthy economy to do that). I support just about all social programs. However, there should be some accountability. I support increasing school funding, but I want to see higher academic achievement as a result. I would even peg increases to achievement. I understand people needing welfare, but any able bodied person on assistance should be in a training program or actively seeking work. And instead of cutting benefits off completely once they found work, I would gradually decrease benefits. I think Obamacare was written by and for the health insurance industry. It is a horrible way to provide health care. But I support it until they can come up with better plan; which to me would the most practical would be to extend Medicare to everyone.

Fire away.

 

[calamity]

The difference between where the Republicans spend money is primarily for the benefit of the business community. Democrats spend on the needy. Both are worthy of attention.

ALL tax revenues derive from business as do ALL jobs. We need a healthy economy to provide the revenues for everything else. So I'm usually in favor of things that help small and large business. The recent business tax cut was necessary to bring us in line with other developed nations, makes us more competitive. I want business to be well regulated, but ALL regulations should be reviewed every five years (annually probably wouldn't be practical) and out-dated regulations purged from the books. Also, the approval process should be streamlined so business can react faster to changes in the market. A business shouldn't have to wait over a decade to get a decision. Tariffs and trade agreements need to be fair to American companies. We should be trying to protect American jobs. Especially good paying jobs. When we allow them to go offshore we put more people on government assistance and lower revenues even further. And our trade agreements should enforce environment laws, include labor rights, and comparable tax rates. It isn't fair that our companies here have to abide by all these regulations but our competition does not. So I am pro business.

We do have an obligation to help those in need. (We need a healthy economy to do that). I support just about all social programs. However, there should be some accountability. I support increasing school funding, but I want to see higher academic achievement as a result. I would even peg increases to achievement. I understand people needing welfare, but any able bodied person on assistance should be in a training program or actively seeking work. And instead of cutting benefits off completely once they found work, I would gradually decrease benefits. I think Obamacare was written by and for the health insurance industry. It is a horrible way to provide health care. But I support it until they can come up with better plan; which to me would the most practical would be to extend Medicare to everyone.

Fire away.

I have mixed feelings on all of it. I don't like enabling bad individual decision making, like borrowing a $100K for a master's degree in poetry. But, I also do not like allowing a business to make obscene profits by dumping solvents into the river, and then walking away from the damage after a dozen years by filing for bankruptcy.

I've seen entire communities turned around by defense spending. And, I've seen the opposite happen when the government decided to build entire neighborhoods with subsidized housing. But, do we really need 15 aircraft carriers (11 in service, 2 in reserve and 2 more under construction)? Or, do we really want millions of people living in tents along bike paths and under bridges?

And, then, of course, there is always the graft. Both sides are pretty crooked and always taking their cut. :shrug:

 

[Waddy]

I have mixed feelings on all of it. I don't like enabling bad individual decision making, like borrowing a $100K for a master's degree in poetry. But, I also do not like allowing a business to make obscene profits by dumping solvents into the river, and then walking away from the damage after a dozen years by filing for bankruptcy.

I've seen entire communities turned around by defense spending. And, I've seen the opposite happen when the government decided to build entire neighborhoods with subsidized housing. But, do we really need 15 aircraft carriers (11 in service, 2 in reserve and 2 more under construction)? Or, do we really want millions of people living in tents along bike paths and under bridges?

And, then, of course, there is always the graft. Both sides are pretty crooked and always taking their cut. :shrug:

I didn't know companies were still dumping poisons into our rivers. We do have laws against that. You should report them to the EPA.

I want the military to have everything they need to accomplish the mission. Better equipment saves lives. At present we do need 15 aircraft carriers. The way to cut down on the number of carriers needed is to reduce the size of the mission. If we weren't responsible for keeping the peace and keeping the sea lanes open around the world and always being able to attack anywhere anytime we wouldn't need so many carriers. That means the European countries need to defend themselves, protect their own regional waters, like the Mediterranean, and the countries near China, like Australia, take over their own defense. But when you are the world's security blanket you need at least 15 carriers. And over 800 military bases.

 

[calamity]

I didn't know companies were still dumping poisons into our rivers. We do have laws against that. You should report them to the EPA.

I want the military to have everything they need to accomplish the mission. Better equipment saves lives. At present we do need 15 aircraft carriers. The way to cut down on the number of carriers needed is to reduce the size of the mission. If we weren't responsible for keeping the peace and keeping the sea lanes open around the world and always being able to attack anywhere anytime we wouldn't need so many carriers. That means the European countries need to defend themselves, protect their own regional waters, like the Mediterranean, and the countries near China, like Australia, take over their own defense. But when you are the world's security blanket you need at least 15 carriers. And over 800 military bases.

The list of superfund sites is pretty long.

Mission creep...we are good at that one. But, maybe if we put enough tariffs on everything, we won't need shipping lanes anymore.

 

[Conservative]

See, more drivel. Dismissed.

yep welcome to ignore

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[Waddy]

The list of superfund sites is pretty long.

Mission creep...we are good at that one. But, maybe if we put enough tariffs on everything, we won't need shipping lanes anymore.

I believe those sites were polluted years ago. I don't think that kind of activity is allowed here now. But it is still allowed in most of the Third World countries we've shipped those polluting industries off to. We cleaned up our air and water largely by moving the polluting industries overseas. That's one major reason polluters have moved those jobs overseas; no environmental regulations. Now, is that fair to industries here which have to abide by the stringent EPA regulations? NO, it isn't. But don't eliminate our regulations. Instead, our trade agreements should by re-written to include environmental responsibility for overseas manufacturers; one part of leveling the playing field.

I think we need to raise some H*** over tariffs, and copyright infringement, and dumping. Dumping is selling your product under market value, or even under the costs of production. It is a way of driving domestic competitors out of business. Tariffs are another way of eliminating the competition, while protecting your own. Our trade agreements greatly favor foreign producers in these areas. And it goes beyond tariffs; if you want to make a movie in the USA, just go for it. No restrictions. But if you want to make a movie in China, you must partner with a Chinese company, hire a percentage of Chinese actors, and adhere to the Chinese political censor code (nothing critical of the Chinese government in the movie). Same type of restrictions on almost every other industry, like cell phones. China does not require their domestic producers be liable for their export products; so you can't sue them for defective, deadly wallboard or tainted milk, or lead in toys or in their dinnerware (lead in glazing). But you can sue American domestic producers for anything. That sound fair? Want to talk about copyright infringement?

 

[calamity]

Trump basically doubled Obama’s deficit :lol:

 

[Waddy]

Trump basically doubled Obama’s deficit :lol:

calamity, every president going forward is going to double the deficit and debt. However, a report out in April showed federal revenues at an all time high, so the tax cut worked; and the rich are paying even more. Why the debt is going up is 78 million baby boomers retiring, and few are ready. They will be wanting their SS and Medicare, along with other subsidies. It's going to get real expensive, real soon. Outlays now exceed SS income. That will also get worse. 10,000 new retirees EACH DAY now.

 

[KLATTU]

calamity, every president going forward is going to double the deficit and debt. However, a report out in April showed federal revenues at an all time high, so the tax cut worked; and the rich are paying even more. Why the debt is going up is 78 million baby boomers retiring, and few are ready. They will be wanting their SS and Medicare, along with other subsidies. It's going to get real expensive, real soon. Outlays now exceed SS income. That will also get worse. 10,000 new retirees EACH DAY now.

...and if Democrats go with fluffbrains like Warren, Sanders and Kamala Harris, its going to get real real real real real expensive.

No sustainable taxaion schem can pay for what these nutjobs want.

 

[Waddy]

...and if Democrats go with fluffbrains like Warren, Sanders and Kamala Harris, its going to get real real real real real expensive.

No sustainable taxaion schem can pay for what these nutjobs want.

I support whatever the people want. With one caveat. You have to pay for it. So you want a war; vote a tax large enough to pay for it. You want free college for everyone? Vote in a tax to pay for it. (And EVERYBODY pays their share, no exceptions) Calling any of these things "an investment" is just a weasel way of giving away stuff and not paying for it so you can win over more voters. Cause there's one thing voters love; free stuff.

If we had to pay a tax for every government program, we'd find out in short order what Americans think is really important.

 

[calamity]

This graph cannot be emphasized enough

Note who really piles on the debt and see who took our deficits up from a surplus to the sky is the limit.

One could almost argue that the Red Party actually does intend to destroy America while the Blue guys guard her. In fact, I'd say it's pretty ****ing obvious.

 

[KLATTU]

I support whatever the people want. With one caveat. You have to pay for it. So you want a war; vote a tax large enough to pay for it. You want free college for everyone? Vote in a tax to pay for it. (And EVERYBODY pays their share, no exceptions) Calling any of these things "an investment" is just a weasel way of giving away stuff and not paying for it so you can win over more voters. Cause there's one thing voters love; free stuff.

If we had to pay a tax for every government program, we'd find out in short order what Americans think is really important.

And how would you define ' fair share"?

 

[Perotista]

So, did Trump promise this?



lol...Scammer in Chief winning again.

But, hey. At least the Right now has judges they think are on thier side. I hope that is worth it.

Although I think the tax cuts was a huge mistake which I opposed. I don't think the Democrats have a leg to stand on when it comes to complaining about the deficit or to use it politically. After all, we just had a president who added 10 trillion dollars to the national debt. All this shows is the 100% hypercritical of both major parties.

 

[Waddy]

And how would you define ' fair share"?

Every program looks good if you don't have to pay for it. Fair share simply means everybody has skin in the game. But it is also a progressive tax. The poor man pays a little, the middle class more and the rich man a lot.

 

[KLATTU]

Every program looks good if you don't have to pay for it. Fair share simply means everybody has skin in the game. But it is also a progressive tax. The poor man pays a little, the middle class more and the rich man a lot.

Women don't have to pay?
That's the tax system we have. I think most people are on board with that,

 

[Waddy]

Women don't have to pay?
That's the tax system we have. I think most people are on board with that,

About half don't pay any federal income tax. Under my system they would pay at least some. Everybody has a stake; everybody has a say.

 

[Media_Truth]

So, did Trump promise this?



lol...Scammer in Chief winning again.

But, hey. At least the Right now has judges they think are on thier side. I hope that is worth it.

Trump's a moron. Typical Republican Deficit building.

 

[calamity]

Trump's a moron. Typical Republican Deficit building.

Republicans are like the husband who ran up the charge card at the bar who then complains when the wife puts $200 on the card to buy the kids school clothes and shoes.

Yes. I actually know men like that. And, guess what? They vote Republican.

 

[StillServing]

Obama had to pull us out of the recession your last Moron in Chief put us in.

Exactly how was the 2008 Crisis exclusively President Bush or the Republicans' fault?

Don't get me wrong, the Bush Administration has blame, but the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission found blame on all sides.