We have a Spending Problem, NOT a tax revenue problem

[Conservative]

Funny, you made the assertion in your OP that we don't have a revenue problem, you have not as yet made the case. President Bush inherited a budget surplus, that didn't mean we have solved the debt problem because the actual debt did go up. But we were well on our way of solving the problem. What did President Bush do? He passed massive tax cut and spent massive amounts of money. In fact, the debt doubled during his time in office. Now you want to blame all this **** on Obama? Give me a ****ing break. Typical conservative BS.

You haven't been paying attention but you are hell bent on bringing up Bush and the lies about an inherited surplus. There was no inherited surplus for how do you explain the Clinton debt going up every year. Surpluses would reduce that debt.

I am still waiting for you to explain how FIT revenue grew after the tax rate cuts of Reagan and Bush. You keep ignoring that just like you ignore the Obama record. FIT revenue growing cannot cause debt, spending more than that growing revenue does.

Typical liberal bs and revisionist history.

 

[Conservative]

Ronnie and Nancy were into astrology, I think maybe that did it. Or was it the jelly beans?

Misery index=inflation plus unemployment. Reagan created 18 million jobs and reduced unemployment, that reduces the misery index. Of course you are still locked in the liberal lies about the Reagan record, not surprising for someone from the left coast.

 

[Thunder]

What did President Bush do? He passed massive tax cut and spent massive amounts of money. In fact, the debt doubled during his time in office. Now you want to blame all this **** on Obama? Give me a ****ing break. Typical conservative BS.

applause. thank you for the fine post.

 

[pbrauer]

You haven't been paying attention but you are hell bent on bringing up Bush and the lies about an inherited surplus. There was no inherited surplus for how do you explain the Clinton debt going up every year. Surpluses would reduce that debt.

I said budget surplus, the reason Bush never put the cost of the wars in the budget was because he wanted to make his budget look good better. He used supplment increases - they don't reflect in the deficit, but they do in the debt.

I am still waiting for you to explain how FIT revenue grew after the tax rate cuts of Reagan and Bush. You keep ignoring that just like you ignore the Obama record. FIT revenue growing cannot cause debt, spending more than that growing revenue does

.
Unless there is a recession FIT revenue always goes up.

Typical liberal bs and revisionist history.

Typical right wing BS and revisionist history.

 

[BayToBay]

Funny, you made the assertion in your OP that we don't have a revenue problem, you have not as yet made the case. President Bush inherited a budget surplus, that didn't mean we have solved the debt problem because the actual debt did go up. But we were well on our way of solving the problem. What did President Bush do? He passed massive tax cut and spent massive amounts of money. In fact, the debt doubled during his time in office. Now you want to blame all this **** on Obama? Give me a ****ing break. Typical conservative BS.

The economy tanked in 2000 which had more of an impact on revenues than did the "tax cuts." Clinton did little to solve the deficit problem, but benefited from the bubble that burst on Bush. Obama is not responsible for all of our woes either.

For some reason this discussion turned into whether Obama or Bush was to blame. The answer is, yes. But that has nothing to do with whether the solution is more taxes or less spending.

 

[Conservative]

applause. thank you for the fine post.

Wow, interesting how Bush increased the debt 5 trillion in 8 years is a disaster but Obama increasing the debt 4 trillion in 2 1/2 years is ignored. Fine post? LOL, nothing to do with the thread topic or the Obama record. The debt Bush created has nothing to do with the debt Obama has created but that confuses liberals like you

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

I said that Reagan policies reduced the misery index and they did.

No, they didn't. As I already taught you, 5 years into Reagan's presidency, unemployment was still (7.2%) about where it was when he started (7.5%). Therefore, it was bringing down inflation which significantly lowered the misery index.

There was no Reagan policy which did that which did that.

Learn to read all the posts before responding and acting like you didn't see my response. Post 716

You're right, you did finally attempt to answer and I apologize for missing it... Here is what you said ...

Between Reagan and Paul Volker they both helped tame inflation and created massive economic growth and job creation. Reagan economic policy cut taxes 10-10-5 across the board put more money into the pockets of individual Americans and boosted economic activity something a liberal like you doesn't understand.

And that answer would be mostly wrong. You are correct about Volker, but the correct answer is Reagan had nothing to do with it. It was the Fed chairman, Paul Volker, who raised federal fund rates to bring down inflation. That is what brought down the misery index it was Paul Volker who did it. If Reagan gets credit for anything, it's for keeping Jimmy Carter's Federal Reserve Chairman. The fact is, Reagan did squat to bring down the misery index.

Now ya know.

 

[Conservative]

I said budget surplus, the reason Bush never put the cost of the wars in the budget was because he wanted to make his budget look good better. He used supplment increases - they don't reflect in the deficit, but they do in the debt.

.
Unless there is a recession FIT revenue always goes up.



Typical right wing BS and revisionist history.

Whether or not the cost of the wars were in the budget has no relevance as the cost of the supplementals is included in the debt generated.

Taxes were cut, liberals say tax cuts cause deficits so if govt. revenue grew how can that be? Spending causes the deficits not tax cuts. Take a basic economics course

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

I am still waiting for you to explain how FIT revenue grew after the tax rate cuts of Reagan and Bush.

WTF??

Your own numbers proved that statement to be false.

Bush began cutting taxes in 2001 and FIT revenue fell in 2001 and 2002 according to the very numbers you posted. How trhe hell do you keep asserting otherwise in the face of your own numbers refuting you???

Damn! :naughty

 

[Conservative]

No, they didn't. As I already taught you, 5 years into Reagan's presidency, unemployment was still (7.2%) about where it was when he started (7.5%). Therefore, it was bringing down inflation which significantly lowered the misery index.

There was no Reagan policy which did that which did that.


You're right, you did finally attempt to answer and I apologize for missing it... Here is what you said ...


And that answer would be mostly wrong. You are correct about Volker, but the correct answer is Reagan had nothing to do with it. It was the Fed chairman, Paul Volker, who raised federal fund rates to bring down inflation. That is what brought down the misery index it was Paul Volker who did it. If Reagan gets credit for anything, it's for keeping Jimmy Carter's Federal Reserve Chairman. The fact is, Reagan did squat to bring down the misery index.

Now ya know.

The misery index is inflation PLUS unemployment. Reagan economic policy reduced the unemployment rate and that reduced the misery index. Now you know

 

[pbrauer]

Misery index=inflation plus unemployment. Reagan created 18 million jobs and reduced unemployment, that reduces the misery index. Of course you are still locked in the liberal lies about the Reagan record, not surprising for someone from the left coast.

Just off the presses:

Ghost of Gipper looms over GOP - POLITICO.com Print View

With the nation at risk of default next month, the Republicans’ fierce anti-tax orthodoxy is running square into the Ghost of the Gipper— the GOP’s great modern, pre-tea party hero, Ronald Reagan.

Indeed, a POLITICO review of Reagan’s own budget documents shows that the Republican president repeatedly signed deficit-reduction legislation in the 1980’s that melded annual tax increases with spending cuts just as President Barack Obama is now asking Congress to consider.

The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) is the most famous, because of its historic size and timing, a dramatic course correction that quickly followed Reagan’s signature income tax cuts in 1981. But in the six years after were four more deficit-reduction acts, which combined to almost double TEFRA’s revenue impact on an annual basis.

...

 

[Conservative]

WTF??

Your own numbers proved that statement to be false.

Bush began cutting taxes in 2001 and FIT revenue fell in 2001 and 2002 according to the very numbers you posted. How trhe hell do you keep asserting otherwise in the face of your own numbers refuting you???

Damn! :naughty

The Bush tax rate cuts were initially rebates not withholding cuts. Those withholding cuts along with business tax credits went into effect July 2003. That is what grew govt. revenue. Again you ignore the recession of 2001 along with 9/11 just like you ignore the recession ended in June 2009 and we have 15.8% unemployment TODAY along with higher deficits.

You are hell bent on ignoring and diverting from the Obama record. That says a lot about you. You don't like Bush, no problem, but to compare the Obama record to Bush and that record being worse, doesn't support your position at all. Bush never had 15.8% unemployment and didn't spend over a trillion dollars to generate those numbers. Keep spinning and diverting probably all for attention.

 

[Thunder]

Bush began cutting taxes in 2001 and FIT revenue fell in 2001 and 2002 according to the very numbers you posted.

thank you!!

 

[Conservative]

Just off the presses:

Ghost of Gipper looms over GOP - POLITICO.com Print View

I anxiously await for the Obama economic policy that will generate Reagan employment numbers?

"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence. You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves."

 

[Thunder]

Just off the presses:

Ghost of Gipper looms over GOP - POLITICO.com Print View

what....ol' Ronny signed into law tax-increases to fight the deficit????

well, I'll be Bonzo's uncle.

 

[Conservative]

what....ol' Ronny signed into law tax-increases to fight the deficit????

well, I'll be Bonzo's uncle.

Keep ignoring some good words of wisdom

"

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence. You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves."

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

The economy tanked in 2000 which had more of an impact on revenues than did the "tax cuts."

Tanked? That's an odd description for a year which produced 4.1% GDP growth. That was more growth than we had during any one of George Bush's years in office. I suppose by your description, it's reasonable to say Bush's 8 years tanked.

 

[Conservative]

Tanked? That's an odd description for a year which produced 4.1% GDP growth. That was more growth than we had during any one of George Bush's years in office. I suppose by your description, it's reasonable to say Bush's 8 years tanked.

words of wisdom that you really should understand

"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence. You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves."

 

[Conservative]

Tanked? That's an odd description for a year which produced 4.1% GDP growth. That was more growth than we had during any one of George Bush's years in office. I suppose by your description, it's reasonable to say Bush's 8 years tanked.

Bush economic growth by year, better do different research

2000 9951.50 6.39%
2001 10286.20 3.36%
2002 10642.30 3.46%
2003 11142.10 4.70%
2004 11867.80 6.51%
2005 12638.40 6.49%
2006 13398.90 6.02%
2007 14077.60 5.07%
2008 14441.40 2.58%

GDP grew from 9.9 trillion to 14.4 trillion or a 4.5 trillion increase. Name for me one other President with that kind of economic growth?

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Wow, interesting how Bush increased the debt 5 trillion in 8 years is a disaster but Obama increasing the debt 4 trillion in 2 1/2 years is ignored.

Well here's the reason for that ...

In Clinton's final year, the debt increased by a mere $22 billion, compared to Bush's final year when it increased $1440 billion.

 

[BayToBay]

No, they didn't. As I already taught you, 5 years into Reagan's presidency, unemployment was still (7.2%) about where it was when he started (7.5%). Therefore, it was bringing down inflation which significantly lowered the misery index.

There was no Reagan policy which did that which did that.


You're right, you did finally attempt to answer and I apologize for missing it... Here is what you said ...


And that answer would be mostly wrong. You are correct about Volker, but the correct answer is Reagan had nothing to do with it. It was the Fed chairman, Paul Volker, who raised federal fund rates to bring down inflation. That is what brought down the misery index it was Paul Volker who did it. If Reagan gets credit for anything, it's for keeping Jimmy Carter's Federal Reserve Chairman. The fact is, Reagan did squat to bring down the misery index.

Now ya know.

I don't fully agree. Let me preface by saying Reagan was not a God or even a great President. He was only less worse than most of the other losers we have elected in the past 80 years.

Reagan continued the privatization and deregulation of many industries that had begun under Carter (Carter should get props from small government proponents, but partisans refuse to acknowledge his good deeds). He also removed some of the idiotic things Carter, Ford and Nixon had added to the federal register. These acts helped to increase productivity, which counter balanced the Feds inflationary policies prior to Volker.

BTW, Nixon was primarily responsible for the s#!+ storm Carter ran into. It was his wage and price controls that nearly wrecked the economy.

 

[Conservative]

Well here's the reason for that ...

In Clinton's final year, the debt increased by a mere $22 billion, compared to Bush's final year when it increased $1440 billion.

So where was that huge surplus left to Bush?

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Bush economic growth by year, better do different research

2000 9951.50 6.39%
2001 10286.20 3.36%
2002 10642.30 3.46%
2003 11142.10 4.70%
2004 11867.80 6.51%
2005 12638.40 6.49%
2006 13398.90 6.02%
2007 14077.60 5.07%
2008 14441.40 2.58%

GDP grew from 9.9 trillion to 14.4 trillion or a 4.5 trillion increase. Name for me one other President with that kind of economic growth?

Holy ****!

You're resorting to nominal figures again???

Even you finally admitted that nominal figures are worthless ...

"Nominal numbers (sometimes called categorical numbers) are numerals used for identification only. The numerical value is irrelevant, and they do not indicate quantity, rank, or any other measurement." ~ Conservative​

Now try being honest for a change and post "real" figures...

2000: 4.1
2001: 1.1
2002: 1.8
2003: 2.5
2004: 3.6
2005: 3.1
2006: 2.7
2007: 1.9
2008: 0.0
2009: -2.6
2010: 2.9

http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xls

 

[Conservative]

Holy ****!

You're resorting to nominal figures again???

Even you finally admitted that nominal figures are worthless ...

"Nominal numbers (sometimes called categorical numbers) are numerals used for identification only. The numerical value is irrelevant, and they do not indicate quantity, rank, or any other measurement." ~ Conservative​

Now try being honest for a change and post "real" figures...

2000: 4.1
2001: 1.1
2002: 1.8
2003: 2.5
2004: 3.6
2005: 3.1
2006: 2.7
2007: 1.9
2008: 0.0
2009: -2.6
2010: 2.9

http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xls

What is the dollar amount of change at bea.gov? You love percentage change but ignore the actual dollars. Then again what does this have to do with the thread topic?

From BEA.gov

2000 9951.50 6.39%
2001 10286.20 3.36%
2002 10642.30 3.46%
2003 11142.10 4.70%
2004 11867.80 6.51%
2005 12638.40 6.49%
2006 13398.90 6.02%
2007 14077.60 5.07%
2008 14441.40 2.58%

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

The misery index is inflation PLUS unemployment. Reagan economic policy reduced the unemployment rate and that reduced the misery index. Now you know

Ok, I know you struggle with numbers, but let's see if you can answer this ... When Reagan took over, the misery index was 19.3% (not over 30% as you falsely asserted) ... 5 years and two months later, the misery index fell back to single digits to 9.5%. Unemployment at that point had dropped only 3/10ths of one percent, from 7.% to 7.2%.

Now here comes the question I wanna see if you're capable of answering (without using fingers) ... what percentage of the drop in the misery index did unemployment play a part of?