Ryan the Redistributionist

[Catawba]

the 90's were ****ing great........

Despite higher tax rates for those at the top! Yep, that's the way I remember them too!

 

[Catawba]

What was the last administration period that reduced debt?

You can't reduce debt until you have a balanced budget, and:

Dwight Eisenhower was last Republican President to preside over a balanced
budget.

 

[Muddy Creek]

What was the last administration period that reduced debt?

And still no link. What driveling right wing website came out with the lie?

 

[Rocketman]

You can't reduce debt until you have a balanced budget, and:

Dwight Eisenhower was last Republican President to preside over a balanced
budget.

or reduce spending to less than revenues

 

[Rocketman]

Your link?

In total, China owns about 8 percent of publicly held U.S. debt. Of all the holders of U.S. debt China is the third-largest, behind only the Social Security Trust Fund's holdings of nearly $3 trillion and the Federal Reserve's nearly $2 trillion holdings in Treasury investments, purchased as part of its quantitative easing program to boost the economy.

U.S. Debt - How Much China Owns

 

[justabubba]

Your post is nothing more than a bunch of nonsensical gibberish. How much time did you spend on that wall of text? You contradict yourself within your own statements as well. First you claim everyone is hoping the rich throws money at them. Then you claim we're throwing money at the rich. You can't even stay consistent with your Regressive class warfare rhetoric. Sad.

Nobody is claiming anyone is "throwing money at the rich", or money at anyone else for that matter. You're just parroting cliche talking points without even the most basic understanding of Economics.

Reagan's Economic Policies > Obama's Economic Policies

Nothing more needs to be said

you can't understand the post and that somehow becomes tererun's fault
so much for personal responsibility

maybe this will be something you can absorb: 93% of our nation's recent income gains went to the top 1%
hopefully, that will be an indication how disproportionate is the flow of wealth to the already rich

 

[Bronson]

you can't understand the post and that somehow becomes tererun's fault
so much for personal responsibility

maybe this will be something you can absorb: 93% of our nation's recent income gains went to the top 1%
hopefully, that will be an indication how disproportionate is the flow of wealth to the already rich

More class warfare gibberish. Are the people who earned that money evil or something? Why should we trust politicians like Obama, who shut down WH Tours and turned children away to make political points, than people who with ideas that innovated entire industries and made products available like the IPAD? Who made it easier to run a business? The IPAD or Regressives like Obama? It's simply not worth anyone's time to take the class warfare bait any longer. That card is used up and needs to be discarded.

50 million people are on Food Stamps. More than half of Americans don't pay income taxes. The top 1% pays nearly 40% of all Federal Income Taxes. Stop dividing Americans based upon how much money they make.

 

[justabubba]

More class warfare gibberish. Are the people who earned that money evil or something? Why should we trust politicians like Obama, who shut down WH Tours and turned children away to make political points, than people who with ideas that innovated entire industries and made products available like the IPAD? Who made it easier to run a business? The IPAD or Regressives like Obama? It's simply not worth anyone's time to take the class warfare bait any longer. That card is used up and needs to be discarded.

50 million people are on Food Stamps. More than half of Americans don't pay income taxes. The top 1% pays nearly 40% of all Federal Income Taxes. Stop dividing Americans based upon how much money they make.

IF our nation operated under a balanced budget i would not complain about the inequity of the distribution of income gains
but we don't
and haven't since after WWII
so, let's tax the most those who benefit the most from this miracle of an economic engine known as the USA

our government needs additional revenues. the rich are enjoying disproportionately in the generated wealth. let them also participate disproportionately in the cost

 

[Bronson]

IF our nation operated under a balanced budget i would not complain about the inequity of the distribution of income gains
but we don't
and haven't since after WWII
so, let's tax the most those who benefit the most from this miracle of an economic engine known as the USA

our government needs additional revenues. the rich are enjoying disproportionately in the generated wealth. let them also participate disproportionately in the cost

Regressives don't want a balanced budget. 17T is "not a problem" in Obamaland.

Our Government doesn't need any more revenue. Obama spent 3.6T last year. The Federal Government just took in a record 2.8T in tax receipts. That's more than enough, especially at the very least if we went back to Clinton era of expenditures, and not the illegal TARP levels of expenditures Obama has been operating at now going on 4 years. You assume that the money people make automatically belongs to the Government. It's religious fanaticism where Government is the God.

There is no set sized pie. Wealth expands and contracts. Every argument you make it based upon the premise that people can be judged and placed in a multitude of groups based upon how much money they make, the color of their skin, who they have sex with, and whether or not they have a penis or a vagina. It's an irrational and emotional way of objectifying people. You create the division and then baptize regressive politicians to step in and "make it fair". It's the same rhetoric going back past Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Your premise is pure Marxist propaganda. I reject it.

It's not the Government's role to redistribute income and make things fair. Poverty is increasing since Obama was elected in office. His wealth redistribution schemes have only made more people poor and dependent upon Government. Again, rich people are not the enemy. They are not all these evil cartoon characters. Have you ever worked for someone who was rich? Do you know any rich people? Are these people evil and scheming? Show me the irrefutable evidence that the majority of rich people are evil and politicians (especially regressives) are these humble altruistic wonderful people.

 

[justabubba]

Regressives don't want a balanced budget. 17T is "not a problem" in Obamaland.

let's examine recent history
a republican president last came into office when the budget was in balance and projected to throw off a surplus
that president then initiated a massive tax relief effort that disproportionately assisted the wealthy, leaving the economy with a massive deficit
he then involved us in two wars, the first of which is now found to have cost $1.7 Trillion and rising; potentially to $6 trillion when all is said and done
we will await the numbers on his off budget war in afghanistan still being waged
and we know that dubya initiated a huge pharm subsidy that cost our nation mightily
and then he left office with an economy in near collapse

Our Government doesn't need any more revenue.

then why the hell are we borrowing massively from the chinese and elsewhere?
if we didn't require more revenue, that would not be the circumstance

Obama spent 3.6T last year. The Federal Government just took in a record 2.8T in tax receipts.

notice how the revenues are $.8 Trillion less than expenditures
that does not happen to a government that "doesn't need any more revenue"
what is stunning is that i have to explain something so fundamental

That's more than enough, especially at the very least if we went back to Clinton era of expenditures, and not the illegal TARP levels of expenditures Obama has been operating at now going on 4 years.

you do realize it has been over a dozen years since clinton was in office. have your own expenses become less over that span? why would we then expect the government to spend at the same rate it did in the year 2000?
again, your rant makes no sense

You assume that the money people make automatically belongs to the Government.

it is you who assumes incorrectly, here. why would the money i earned automatically be considered the property of our government
again, you make no sense. notice the pattern of nonsense thus far?

It's religious fanaticism where Government is the God.

MORE nonsense. i have never seen anyone insist that the government is G-d. where the hell do you come up with these stupid, STUPID beliefs?

There is no set sized pie.

who said the size of the asset pie is fixed? are voices speaking to you saying these absurd things?

Wealth expands and contracts.

but let's examine the economic history of our nation; does it not more expand in wealth rather than contract?
now, let's see if you actually had a point to make with that statement

Every argument you make it based upon the premise that people can be judged and placed in a multitude of groups based upon how much money they make, the color of their skin, who they have sex with, and whether or not they have a penis or a vagina.

seems not. just more nonsense.
when it comes to taxation i could give a rip about the taxpaying citizens' race, gender or sexual inclination; that is something those on the reich wing tend to be focused upon
when it comes to assessing taxes, we need to determine what revenues must be generated and then put in place policies that assure those revenues are generated in the form of taxes
now, in doing so, it is now wise to examine who is best able to pay more and who is least able to do so
currently, 93% of additional income is being realized by the top 1%
so, that tells me the top 1% is an appropriate taxpayer strata to tax at a higher effective rate than those whose incomes are not rising

It's an irrational and emotional way of objectifying people.

here we agree. it is "an irrational and emotional way of objectifying people"; so why do you and those like you insist on doing so?

You create the division ...

i did not create the division. i looked at the data and see where taxpayers are doing well and recognize that strata is where additional tax revenues should be generated
so, while i identified the division, i did NOT create it. just more of your repeated nonsense to insist otherwise

... and then baptize regressive politicians to step in and "make it fair".

it appears to me if the top 1% is earning more than 1% of the additional generated income something is out of balance regarding income equity. when we see that the 1% pockets 93% of new income that is 92% more than their proportion per capita. now, i agree that the upper 1% expended effort to achieve those added earnings, but at the rate of 93 times their representation in our society? no. that is not equitable. and thus, because our government needs to raise revenues to cover expenses, we should start by assessing that 1% at a higher effective rate

It's the same rhetoric going back past Lenin and the Bolsheviks.

clearly you haven't a clue about what you post. this has nothing to do with leninism or bolshevism or communism. this is just more nonsense that you post because you have very little to actually offer in any discussion about economics

Your premise is pure Marxist propaganda.

more bull**** from you. but prove me wrong. show how what i recommend is in any way found to be marxist. i truly look forward to that exchange

I reject it.

you reject something that does not exist. that is nothing to be proud of ... kind of like your post

It's not the Government's role to redistribute income and make things fair.

the government is NOT redistributing income. it is taxing those who have earnings in order to pay for the costs of government. and if we want the populace to continue to pay taxes then the system had better be found by them to be an equitable one. that is another word for "fair"
so, yes, it is of utmost importance that the tax system be found by the taxpayers as a fair one

Poverty is increasing since Obama was elected in office.

it was before he came into office. the massive job losses that were precipitated at the end of the dicknbush regime almost collapsed the economy. do you think jobless people are going to enjoy the same standard of living once they are no longer employed? well, you might, but a person who understands economics would know better

His wealth redistribution schemes have only made more people poor and dependent upon Government.

the top 1% are earning 93% of the additional income and that is Obama's redistribution to the poor? you are without a clue

Again, rich people are not the enemy.

no, they are not. but they are enjoying the bulk of additional income. and because of that they need to be the ones paying more in taxes to bridge our nation's budgetary shortfall

They are not all these evil cartoon characters.

who said they were; or are you only making up more nonsense, being without anything to say which would be found informed

Have you ever worked for someone who was rich?

yes. my job was to try to make them richer. do you have a point? please finally have a constructive point

Do you know any rich people?

well, if i helped them become rich then i knew them. still no point. what a surprise

Are these people evil and scheming?

by and large no. and certainly no more than people who are not rich. please have a point

Show me the irrefutable evidence that the majority of rich people are evil

i just expressed that they are NOT evil. duh!!!!!!!!

... and politicians (especially regressives) are these humble altruistic wonderful people.

who the hell said any of that?
you should get an award for the most strawmen in a single ignorant post

 

[Catawba]

or reduce spending to less than revenues

And what Republican administration last reduced spending below revenues?

 

[66gardeners]

The question i have is how do you know you are paying for them? Was there some social security office in this supermarket? How about a medicaid office, or an immigration office? Did they make you pay for their groceries or something? how do you know they were not taxpaying citizens?

Or did you just let your racism decide you were paying for them when you were not actually paying anything for them?

Imagine how the mexicans felt when they saw him pay with food stamps

 

[Rocketman]

And what Republican administration last reduced spending below revenues?

What Democrat has? Not Obama, Not Clinton. Debt increased under both

 

[Bronson]

Holy massive wall of text Batman

What is going on with your formatting? Looks like you're knee jerking back to Bush, who spent like a drunken liberal, because you believe it absolved your God King Obama of any responsibility for his outrageous reckless spending. Again, more class warfare rhetoric that doesn't pass the smell test. You characterize Americans being allowed to keep more of the money they earn as "assisting the wealthy". It's Marxist gibberish.

1) The majority of the Bush tax cuts helped the Middle Class, which is why Obama kept them in place. Revenue to the Treasury also increased after tax rates were reduced. Bill Clinton tried to raise taxes and revenue decreased, which is why he stated he raised taxes too high before cutting them again.

2) The Democrats in Congress continued to vote to fund both wars, even after they gained control of the House. Afghanistan was supposed to be the "Good War" because the Taliban assisted Al Qaeda and gave them shelter to plan and execute 9/11. Is Afghanistan not a war we should have fought now? Make up your mind.

3) I didn't support the vast majority of Bush's domestic policies. Whine about Bush to someone who cares.

4) The Democrats left the Economy in near collapse. A recent study confirms the CRA was primarily responsible for the financial collapse. Democrats blocked all GSE reform and told there was no crisis at Fannie and Freddie a few short years before they collapsed.

then why the hell are we borrowing massively from the chinese and elsewhere?

Govt doesn't need more revenue. There's no accountability as to how the money is spent. There is no risk assessment as to how the money is spent.

Federal government waste - Sun Sentinel

In 2010, improper payments in federal programs totaled $125 billion. That's more than six times the total budget for NASA.

"It absolutely is one of the big costs'' to the nation's taxpayers, said U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla. "The most egregious [example] is paying out these fraudulent claims.''

notice how the revenues are $.8 Trillion less than expenditures

What is stunning is that you believe just because the Government spent more than it takes in, that it needs more money :lol:

you do realize it has been over a dozen years since clinton was in office.

Again, clearly you are a waste of my time. Consider this the last response. I have better things to do.

Obama is spending 3.7T a year and has been illegally spending at TARP levels of expenditures for 4 years. 6 trillion has been added to the deficit. Yes I expect the Federal Government to spend within it's means and not piss away billions upon billions a year. Household expenditures are not the same as a Federal Budget. I can't go to the printing press and print more money like Obama can. I actually have to assess "risk" when I purchase things. I have to plan things out. It's called budgeting. Democrats have just proposed the first budget in 4 years and it's filled with laughable accounting gimmicks, lies, obfuscation, and a 62% increase in Federal Spending.

All that money you feel Obama and the regressives are entitled to is money they take away from someone else. There are massive opportunity costs and negative externalities associated with that which affect economic growth. No new wealth is being created. Money is being siphoned away from producers, who could have used that money in a variety of ways to stimulate economic growth. In the end, it's a wash, which is why Obama's "Stimulus" failed so spectacularly.

why would the money i earned automatically be considered the property of our government

You think the money that everyone else earns belongs to Government. Especially if they make a lot more money than you do. :lol:

i have never seen anyone insist that the government is G-d.

Government has become the religion of the Regressive Movement. They have a fanatical belief that Government is the answer to all problems.

who said the size of the asset pie is fixed?

Dodge noted

but let's examine the economic history of our nation; does it not more expand in wealth rather than contract?

You're all the over the map here. It's getting silly.

that is something those on the reich wing tend to be focused upon

Nazis were radical left wing collectivists actually

when it comes to assessing taxes, we need to determine what revenues must be generated and then put in place policies that assure those revenues are generated in the form of taxes
now,

The voices inside your head are lying to you.

The idea that you can manage all the millions of spontaneous transactions happening all day every day with "policies" from Washington is laughable. Centrally Planning an economy hurts growth. Especially central planning from an incompetent Government that flushes 125B a year down the toilet. Stop worrying about the 1% and start worrying about yourself. Nobody owes you anything. Nobody owes you a job. If someone starts a small business and it grows and they become wealthy, they don't owe you a damn thing.

Who are you to say what's appropriate? The bottom 50% PAY ZERO. The top 1% pays 40%. Nothing more needs to be said. Case closed.

here we agree. it is "an irrational and emotional way of objectifying people"; so why do you and those like you insist on doing so?

Projection noted

i did not create the division. i looked at the data

What data? You have yet to provide 1 source for your rambling. We've spent trillions on the poor. Guess what. They are still poor. Not only that, but the amount of people BECOMING poor is increasing. Instead of rationalizing that and understanding poverty has psychological factors that centrally planned regressives can't comprehend and don't understand, their answer is to claim that the evil rich aren't paying enough. We need to throw more money at the poor and get more people dependent upon Government. Maybe you're comfortable with 50 million people being on Food Stamps. I'm not.

When the Government runs out of money and can no longer subsidize the next meal for those 50 million people, what's going to happen? How are those people going to eat? What are they going to do?

You are dividing this country based upon how much money people make. It's Marxist Propaganda.

it appears to me if the top 1% is earning more than 1% of the additional generated income something is out of balance regarding income equity. when we see that the 1% pockets 93% of new income that is 92% more than their proportion per capita. now, i agree that the upper 1% expended effort to achieve those added earnings, but at the rate of 93 times their representation in our society? no. that is not equitable. and thus, because our government needs to raise revenues to cover expenses, we should start by assessing that 1% at a higher effective rate

I'm glad you agree they expend "some effort". How thoughtful of you. Why don't you create the next drug that can cure a serious disease then. Why don't you get off your a$$ and develop the next IPAD and Smartphone if it's so easy.

clearly you haven't a clue about what you post. this has nothing to do with leninism or bolshevism or communism. this is just more nonsense that you post because you have very little to actually offer in any discussion about economics

You're projecting. It has everything to do with Marxism. That is the propaganda you are spewing. That's all the radical left wingers on these boards ever spew. Marxist class division. Your economic "argument" is that rich people make too much money and we need to have the Government take it away from them and give it to someone else. That has unseen economic costs that people like you never calculate.

more bull**** from you. but prove me wrong. show how what i recommend is in any way found to be marxist. i truly look forward to that exchange

See above. You're a radical left wing Marxist.

the government is NOT redistributing income. it is taxing those who have earnings in order to pay for the costs of government. and if we want the populace to continue to pay taxes then the system had better be found by them to be an equitable one. that is another word for "fair"
so, yes, it is of utmost importance that the tax system be found by the taxpayers as a fair one

You're just making stuff up now. Please see above for who pays taxes and who doesn't. Unfunded entitlements are in the trillions upon trillions of dollars. 50 million on food stamps. A large % of Americans received subsidies and welfare while at the same time not contributing a penny in Federal Income Taxes. It's wealth redistribution and certainly not fair to the people that actually do contribute.

it was before he came into office. the massive job losses that were precipitated at the end of the dicknbush regime almost collapsed the economy.

The Economy collapsed because of Regressive Policies. I am not a Bush supporter. Use him as a strawman to someone else who cares.

the top 1% are earning 93% of the additional income and that is Obama's redistribution to the poor? you are without a clue

Please see above. You're still stuck on how much money other people are making. Apparently you're not content to go out there, risk some capital, start your own business, and create your own wealth. I don't really feel like going over the welfare and entitlement numbers, as well as the improper payment numbers for the 50th time. It's pointless to even have a discussion with you. You believe Government doesn't spend enough. You believe Obama can better spend the money people make than the people who made that money. I get it. Great. Good luck with that.

no, they are not. but they are enjoying the bulk of additional income. and because of that they need to be the ones paying more in taxes to bridge our nation's budgetary shortfall

They already pay nearly 40% of all Federal Income taxes. That sounds fair to me.

who said they were; or are you only making up more nonsense, being without anything to say which would be found informed

Stop talking about them like they are then. Stop referring to successful Americans who make more money than you as the 1%. They are your countrymen.

yes. my job was to try to make them richer. do you have a point? please finally have a constructive point

So you "made them richer" without getting paid?

well, if i helped them become rich then i knew them. still no point. what a surprise

You knew them, but it seems like you don't like them because they are more successful than you

by and large no. and certainly no more than people who are not rich. please have a point

If they aren't evil and scheming than why are you so pissed off they made a lot of money? Why should more of the money they earn be taken away so someone else can have it? If they've lawfully earned their money why is Obama entitled to more of it? Especially after he's wasted taxpayer money on failed Stimuli, Green Energy Scams, Improper Payments, and exposed his lack of character by shutting down WH Tours for little kids to score political points?

i just expressed that they are NOT evil. duh!!!!!!!!

Then stop demanding their money. It doesn't belong to you.

who the hell said any of that?
you should get an award for the most strawmen in a single ignorant post

You don't even know what a strawman is. If they aren't altruistic wonderful people than why do you want them in charge of every aspect of your life? Why do they deserve 3.7T a year? That's why your belief in Government is a fanatical religion. It's not rational. Anyways that's all the time I will set aside for you. For any further responses and education as to why Big Government is not the solution to all your problems, please refer to this post for any clarification.

Have a great evening :2wave:

 

[Catawba]

What Democrat has? Not Obama, Not Clinton. Debt increased under both

President Clinton was the last Democrat to produce a budget surplus.
FactCheck.org : The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

 

[AlabamaPaul]

President Clinton was the last Democrat to produce a budget surplus.
FactCheck.org : The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

Fact check the Treasury Department with respect to the last time the nation's debt was actually reduced, and get back to me...

 

[Catawba]

Fact check the Treasury Department with respect to the last time the nation's debt was actually reduced, and get back to me...

The point made was that, despite the hype, Democrats have come much closer to reducing debt than have Republicans in modern history.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

The point made was that, despite the hype, Democrats have come much closer to reducing debt than have Republicans in modern history.

That's not what you posted...

 

[Catawba]

That's not what you posted...

I posted that unlike the Republicans presidents, Clinton had a budget surplus!

 

[Rocketman]

President Clinton was the last Democrat to produce a budget surplus.
FactCheck.org : The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

How Did A Surplus Result In The National Debt Going Up?


Why Did The National Debt Go Up During The Clinton Surplus Years?

 

[Catawba]

How Did A Surplus Result In The National Debt Going Up?

Why Did The National Debt Go Up During The Clinton Surplus Years?

Your link shows the debt under Clinton increased only $100 billion during his 8 years. Which Republican President had as little increase in debt?

 

[Rocketman]

Your link shows the debt under Clinton increased only $100 billion during his 8 years. Which Republican President had as little increase in debt?

Which republican benefited from the silicon valley startup through no effforts of his own?

 

[Catawba]

Which republican benefited from the silicon valley startup through no effforts of his own?

Ha! You mean the silicon valley that wasn't hurt by Clinton's higher tax rates?

 

[Rocketman]

Ha! You mean the silicon valley that wasn't hurt by Clinton's higher tax rates?

I mean the .com that took off while he was ****ing the fat intern and groping unwilling women

 

[Catawba]

I mean the .com that took off while he was ****ing the fat intern and groping unwilling women

With higher tax rates didn't slow that down growth one bit! That was the point!

Oh, and I preferred the president that had a budget surplus and lied about getting a blowjob over the president that lied the nation into an 8 year war that will cost us $6 trillion dollars with no benefit to US citizens.