A Booming Surplus

[highroller]

You weren't around when Gingrich and Kaisch using tax rate cuts and spending restraint and welfare reform, all of which Clinton opposed but finally had to give in, balanced the budget and produced surpluses? You weren't around when Bush43 with a Rep Congress produce budgets heading back to surplus after the 2001 recession with tax rate cuts getting the deficit down to a paltry $161B FY2007. Maybe you then missed the Democrats taking back the Congress and two years later the deficit hitting $1,400B even with their tax rate increases and keeping it over $1,000B for the next four? Perhaps you missed the Republicans starting to take back the Congress and passing austerity and sequester cutting that deficit in half?

And you think now the Democrats are heading us towards a surplus?

Republicans have never had a surplus in my lifetime. You can bitch and complain about Gingrich not getting credit in the 90s, but the fact remains that they are all talk. You need to balance the budget to get surpluses. Republicans don’t do that and haven’t done that in my lifetime. Your democrat character assassination attempt is noted though.

 

[Exquisitor]

You weren't around when Gingrich and Kaisch using tax rate cuts and spending restraint and welfare reform, all of which Clinton opposed but finally had to give in, balanced the budget and produced surpluses? You weren't around when Bush43 with a Rep Congress produce budgets heading back to surplus after the 2001 recession with tax rate cuts getting the deficit down to a paltry $161B FY2007. Maybe you then missed the Democrats taking back the Congress and two years later the deficit hitting $1,400B even with their tax rate increases and keeping it over $1,000B for the next four? Perhaps you missed the Republicans starting to take back the Congress and passing austerity and sequester cutting that deficit in half?

And you think now the Democrats are heading us towards a surplus?

Clinton vetoed the Republican Budget and closed down the Government to make them come up with a balanced budget by the end of his term.

 

[KLATTU]

Inb4 the mental gymnastics from our resident righties trying to explain that Democrats are the ones who run up the deficit, when in fact they aren't.

To make any statement that 'the ------- ( party ) runs up deficits' is foolish.First off , you would have to factor in the control of Congress . Then you have to facore in events that are not relevant to gov't spending and revenue. ( eg the pandemic ...the crash of 2008) .IF you look at the situation for the past 50 + and see that there has been on surplus in one year. (Dem Pres,Rep congress)
The typical strategies of the GOP -tax cuts with no spending restarints- and the DEMs- tax hikes but even more mega spending ( eg BBB), don't do the trick.

 

[Stinger]

Clinton vetoed the Republican Budget and closed down the Government to make them come up with a balanced budget by the end of his term.

False they passed their budgets and their tax rate cuts and their welfare reform and Dick Morris told either get on board or start packing to move back to Arkansas. Clinton requested more spending that Congress authorized even when he had a Democrat Congress.

 

[Stinger]

Republicans have never had a surplus in my lifetime. You can bitch and complain about Gingrich not getting credit in the 90s, but the fact remains that they are all talk. You need to balance the budget to get surpluses. Republicans don’t do that and haven’t done that in my lifetime. Your democrat character assassination attempt is noted though.

Of course they did taking back the Congress in 1995 they reversed the increases the Democrats were pushing even during a period of strong growth, passed restrained budgets, tax cuts that created a huge increase in revenues and had balanced budges in 1998,1999, 2000 and 2001. There was a recession and, with now the White House too, with their proper response to it limited the depth and length and with the tax rate cuts producing even HIGHER increases had us heading back to surplus and a paltry $161B deficit for FY2007 and then the Democrats took back control of the Congress, a year before the next recession, and then the White House and we see the results. HUGE deficits again until the Republicans started taking back the Congress. No assassination, just the facts.

 

[Stinger]

Still don't know how bills become law I see, lol. Still repeating long ago refuted arguments from this and the other forum I see, lol.

I know exactly, are you still claiming Bush could have and should have vetoed the Democrats 2009 budget which resulted in a massive $1,400B deficit?

 

[99percenter]

I know exactly, are you still claiming Bush could have and should have vetoed the Democrats 2009 budget which resulted in a massive $1,400B deficit?

Yes he should have. But bush is no fiscal conservative like obama and clinton.

 

[rahl]

I know exactly, are you still claiming Bush could have and should have vetoed the Democrats 2009 budget which resulted in a massive $1,400B deficit?

lol you still dont know how bills become law. Its hilarious

 

[Stinger]

lol you still dont know how bills become law. Its hilarious

Are you still claiming Bush could have and should have vetoed the Democrats 2009 budget which resulted in a massive $1,400B deficit?

yes or no

 

[Stinger]

Yes he should have. But bush is no fiscal conservative like obama and clinton.

Please explain how he could possibly have done so. You might want to check your history on it.

Was he Gingrich/Kasich? Well he and the Republican Congress had the deficit down to a paltry $161B for FY2007 heading to surplus again, what would have made him more a fiscal conservative in your view and what is your complaint about their deficits?

 

[rahl]

Are you still claiming Bush could have and should have vetoed the Democrats 2009 budget which resulted in a massive $1,400B deficit?

yes or no

have you still not learned how a bill becomes law?

yes or no

 

[Stinger]

have you still not learned how a bill becomes law?

yes or no

learned decades ago as I have demonistrated

Are you still claiming Bush could have and should have vetoed the Democrats 2009 budget which resulted in a massive $1,400B deficit?

yes or no show us YOU know how a bill becomes law.

 

[rahl]

learned decades ago as I have demonistrated

then why do you keep getting it wrong?

Are you still claiming Bush could have and should have vetoed the Democrats 2009 budget which resulted in a massive $1,400B deficit?

yes or no show us YOU know how a bill becomes law.

why have you still not learned how a bill becomes law?

 

[Stinger]

then why do you keep getting it wrong?

why have you still not learned how a bill becomes law?

ROFL says the person who believes when Congress passes a bill they can send it to an ex-president and he signs it and it becomes law........................just hilarious.

I remind you for when you try to attribute Dem deficits to Bush

"In FY2009, Congress did not complete work by September 30, 2008. President Bush did sign some appropriations bills and a continuing resolution to keep the government running into President Obama’s first term, yet a Democrat controlled Congress purposely held off on the big spending portions of the appropriations bills until Obama took office. They did so for the purposes of jacking up spending. President Obama signed the final FY2009 spending bills on March 11, 2009.

The Democrats purposely held off on the appropriations process because they hoped they could come into 2009 with a new Democrat-friendly Congress and a President who would sign bloated spending bills. Remember, President Obama was in the Senate when these bills were crafted and he was part of this process to craft bloated spending bills. CQ reported that “in delaying the nine remaining bills until 2009, Democrats gambled that they would come out of the November 2008 elections with bigger majorities in both chambers and a Democrat in the White House who would support more funding for domestic programs.” And they did.
The Truth about President Obama's Skyrocketing Spending


"Unlike last year, when Bush forced Democrats to accept lower spending figures, this year could prove more difficult for the president. The fiscal year begins Oct. 1, less than four months before he leaves office.

"He doesn't have us over a barrel this year, because either a President Clinton or a President Obama will have to deal with us next year," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "We are not going to be held hostage to the unreasonableness of this president."

Much of the president's plan has little chance of passage, lawmakers and budget experts say. Nearly $200 billion in Medicare and Medicaid savings need congressional approval, which Democrats are unlikely to provide. "Dead on arrival," vowed Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

Dems set for fight on Bush budget - USATODAY.com

President Bush set the stage Monday for an election-year battle over spending priorities by proposing a $3.1 trillion budget that cuts spending and taxes while more than doubling the federal deficit.

usatoday30.usatoday.com

The FY2009 was not passed until AFTER Bush left office and giving Obama time to add his additional spending and then signed into law by President Obama.

It is pointless to try and have a discussion with you as you will merely claim you have already refuted anything posted, as you demonstrated regularly, and refuse to answer direct questions as you continue to do here. Your history of obfuscation well documented.

And of course your claims of white flags, no white flag offered. So don't fallaciously claim one as that seems to be your only goal in such forums.



My other forum beckons..........

 

[rahl]

ROFL says the person who believes when Congress passes a bill they can send it to an ex-president and he signs it and it becomes law........................just hilarious.

I remind you for when you try to attribute Dem deficits to Bush

"In FY2009, Congress did not complete work by September 30, 2008. President Bush did sign some appropriations bills and a continuing resolution to keep the government running into President Obama’s first term, yet a Democrat controlled Congress purposely held off on the big spending portions of the appropriations bills until Obama took office. They did so for the purposes of jacking up spending. President Obama signed the final FY2009 spending bills on March 11, 2009.

The Democrats purposely held off on the appropriations process because they hoped they could come into 2009 with a new Democrat-friendly Congress and a President who would sign bloated spending bills. Remember, President Obama was in the Senate when these bills were crafted and he was part of this process to craft bloated spending bills. CQ reported that “in delaying the nine remaining bills until 2009, Democrats gambled that they would come out of the November 2008 elections with bigger majorities in both chambers and a Democrat in the White House who would support more funding for domestic programs.” And they did.
The Truth about President Obama's Skyrocketing Spending


"Unlike last year, when Bush forced Democrats to accept lower spending figures, this year could prove more difficult for the president. The fiscal year begins Oct. 1, less than four months before he leaves office.

"He doesn't have us over a barrel this year, because either a President Clinton or a President Obama will have to deal with us next year," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "We are not going to be held hostage to the unreasonableness of this president."

Much of the president's plan has little chance of passage, lawmakers and budget experts say. Nearly $200 billion in Medicare and Medicaid savings need congressional approval, which Democrats are unlikely to provide. "Dead on arrival," vowed Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

Dems set for fight on Bush budget - USATODAY.com

President Bush set the stage Monday for an election-year battle over spending priorities by proposing a $3.1 trillion budget that cuts spending and taxes while more than doubling the federal deficit.

usatoday30.usatoday.com

The FY2009 was not passed until AFTER Bush left office and giving Obama time to add his additional spending and then signed into law by President Obama.

It is pointless to try and have a discussion with you as you will merely claim you have already refuted anything posted, as you demonstrated regularly, and refuse to answer direct questions as you continue to do here. Your history of obfuscation well documented.

And of course your claims of white flags, no white flag offered. So don't fallaciously claim one as that seems to be your only goal in such forums.



My other forum beckons..........

I don't know why you feel the need to keep showing everyone that you don't know how bills become law. Everyone already knows this.

 

[Lucky 1]

Then it ought to be easy for someone as well read as you to provide sources supporting your opinion.

Its NOT an opinion.....He's correct. Revenue grew under President Trump quite a bit.

 

[rahl]

Its NOT an opinion.....He's correct. Revenue grew under President Trump quite a bit.

and not as much as it should have, because.....................................math.

 

[Kushinator]

Its NOT an opinion.....He's correct. Revenue grew under President Trump quite a bit.

Revenue grew 6% between FY 2016 and FY 2019. Expenditures on the other hand grew by 15.4% in that same time frame.

 

[PirateMk1]

If you're talking about a budget surplus it will be Democrats and it will happen when they nationalize the banking system, raise tax rates to 100% across the board and confiscate all privately held property. That surplus will last for roughly 5 minutes as after that there will be civil war.

It will be a good time to collect skulls for my throne.

 

[99percenter]

ROFL says the person who believes when Congress passes a bill they can send it to an ex-president and he signs it and it becomes law........................just hilarious.

I remind you for when you try to attribute Dem deficits to Bush

"In FY2009, Congress did not complete work by September 30, 2008. President Bush did sign some appropriations bills and a continuing resolution to keep the government running into President Obama’s first term, yet a Democrat controlled Congress purposely held off on the big spending portions of the appropriations bills until Obama took office. They did so for the purposes of jacking up spending. President Obama signed the final FY2009 spending bills on March 11, 2009.

The Democrats purposely held off on the appropriations process because they hoped they could come into 2009 with a new Democrat-friendly Congress and a President who would sign bloated spending bills. Remember, President Obama was in the Senate when these bills were crafted and he was part of this process to craft bloated spending bills. CQ reported that “in delaying the nine remaining bills until 2009, Democrats gambled that they would come out of the November 2008 elections with bigger majorities in both chambers and a Democrat in the White House who would support more funding for domestic programs.” And they did.
The Truth about President Obama's Skyrocketing Spending


"Unlike last year, when Bush forced Democrats to accept lower spending figures, this year could prove more difficult for the president. The fiscal year begins Oct. 1, less than four months before he leaves office.

"He doesn't have us over a barrel this year, because either a President Clinton or a President Obama will have to deal with us next year," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "We are not going to be held hostage to the unreasonableness of this president."

Much of the president's plan has little chance of passage, lawmakers and budget experts say. Nearly $200 billion in Medicare and Medicaid savings need congressional approval, which Democrats are unlikely to provide. "Dead on arrival," vowed Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

Dems set for fight on Bush budget - USATODAY.com

President Bush set the stage Monday for an election-year battle over spending priorities by proposing a $3.1 trillion budget that cuts spending and taxes while more than doubling the federal deficit.

usatoday30.usatoday.com

The FY2009 was not passed until AFTER Bush left office and giving Obama time to add his additional spending and then signed into law by President Obama.

It is pointless to try and have a discussion with you as you will merely claim you have already refuted anything posted, as you demonstrated regularly, and refuse to answer direct questions as you continue to do here. Your history of obfuscation well documented.

And of course your claims of white flags, no white flag offered. So don't fallaciously claim one as that seems to be your only goal in such forums.



My other forum beckons..........

Revisionist history

 

[Bullseye]

Republicans have never had a surplus in my lifetime. You can bitch and complain about Gingrich not getting credit in the 90s, but the fact remains that they are all talk. You need to balance the budget to get surpluses. Republicans don’t do that and haven’t done that in my lifetime. Your democrat character assassination attempt is noted though.

Where's the "neither" option?

 

[Bullseye]

A Booming Surplus:

What do you think kids, who will lead us to a booming surplus?

We had it under Clinton, we were on that road with Obama, and now we're on it with Biden, coming out of the pandemic and we're twenty years and thirty-trillion dollars behind.
"
It's the only thing that works, it's the only thing that matters; go Democrats.

They were hardly "booming" without the social security surpluses to pad the totals they were minuscule.

 

[99percenter]

I don't know why you feel the need to keep showing everyone that you don't know how bills become law. Everyone already knows this.

I think the argument that he is making is that bush was so weak that he gave up executive authority to congress. So in effect we never had a president from 01 to 09. Can you blame him? The only way he can explain away bush’s pathetic presidency is to pretend he didn’t exist and everyone else is to blame.

 

[rahl]

I think the argument that he is making is that bush was so weak that he gave up executive authority to congress. So in effect we never had a president from 01 to 09. Can you blame him? The only way he can explain away bush’s pathetic presidency is to pretend he didn’t exist and everyone else is to blame.

You have no idea the rabbit hole of stupidity his arguments will lead you down.

 

[99percenter]

You have no idea the rabbit hole of stupidity his arguments will lead you down.

Poor George. It’s a shame those evil dems hid his veto pen. I hear pelosi also put on a strap on and ****ed Georgie in the ass every day against his will. My source on that one is bush fanboys.