Why republicans are unfit to govern in just 1 chart

[Conservative]

The Penguin;1065092898]So you oppose Medicare, then?

Yes, of course I do but Medicare is funded by FICA(Payroll Taxes) and is mandated by the Federal Govt. but the problem with Medicare is the unified budget which All Medicare funding went into the General fund and not saved for Medicare expenses. Not sure what your point is as I believe healthcare is a personal responsibility issue but since we were forced into Medicare the money should be there for you when you retire but it isn't. It is now a Ponzi scheme

Who said it was underfunded? I didn't say that. I said its Trust Fund solvency has been extended by an additional 8 years thanks to Obamacare. Seems like you're creating a straw-man here. I don't know what you're trying to say, but I've never said Medicare is underfunded. Trying to ascribe that belief to me is a straw-man that I'm not even going to bother with anymore.

I said it and the Treasury reports it. Simply you buy what you are told and never research the rhetoric. Prove the Obamacare extends the life of Medicare and why is Obamacare even necessary? Do you understand the unified budget?

First of all, the Trusts for both Medicare and Social Security are solvent. The IOU's you're referring to are when the government borrowed, interest free, from those programs to meet the budget needs. Budget needs that wouldn't be necessary if we hadn't cut taxes like crazy. The reason we borrow from SS and Medicare is because we don't accrue interest when we do. So it makes sense to borrow from those funds because we don't have to pay interest on the borrowing to do so. Whether or not you think that's ethical is a matter of opinion. The funds are recoupable...we can easily get them back by removing the SS cap and slightly raising the Medicare tax. What's the big deal? The programs clearly work and are popular.

They are only solvent as long as our nation remains solvent. What you don't understand is the Trust fund is now filled with IOU's that have to be funded. How do those IOU's get funded? When the money was borrowed from the Trust fund IOU's were created and those IOU's are debt. they are being funded by debt service because they are future obligations including yours. When public debt is discussed total debt is ignored and we pay debt service on total debt not just public debt

If I do that, will you admit you're wrong and never come on these boards again? we see that in 2012, the federal deficit stood at $1.087B. The Bush Tax Cuts for income above $400K ended on December 31st, 2012. The Federal Deficit for 2013 was $679B. That's a reduction of $408B. $50B of that $408B is due to the Sequester. Which means the only other deficit reduction that happened in 2013 was the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts on income above $400K...so that would represent the other $358B.

Reality is the elimination of the Bush tax cuts on the rich would amount to 80 billion dollars if there is no behavioral change and you cannot prove behavior wouldn't change thus that is a pipe dream but 54 billion is a drop in the bucket when you have an 18.2 trillion dollar debt

The Deficit vs. the Bush Tax Cuts

 

[Conservative]

If you tax only the rich, according to the New York Times analysis of the federal budget deficit (David Leonhardt's recent "Fix the Deficit Puzzle"), by allowing taxes to go up for households earning income above $250,000 a year, the take would be $54 billion in 2015 (or 13% of the projected $418 billion 2015 budget shortfall) or $115 billion in 2030 (or 9% of the projected $1,345 billion budget shortfall in 2030).

Do you not realize how minimal that is and why would you want to affect human behavior for such a puny amount? What is it about liberals who don't understand that when you cut taxes you give people more spendable income including the rich and that has a stimulating affect on the U.S. economy. Reagan cut FIT three years in a row and increased FIT revenue by over 60% because the economy was stimulated and we had 17 million new taxpayers. Get it yet?

Why do you think low tax states are doing so well attracting business and population? Instead of taxing the businesses they allow the businesses to bring their employees and new taxpayers to the state. Pretty simple process

Straw man again! I never said it did. But if you really want to know it reduces the amount the debt grows by since the debt is cumulative. So the growth in debt slows because the deficit is smaller.

If human behavior doesn't change. Slowing the growth of the debt is still debt and when interest rates rise so will debt service

Of course that's a bit deceptive...sure the cumulative debt reflects these figures, however when you look at it in relation to GDP, Conservatives have done a far, far better job of growing debt than Democrats. Prior to Obama, Bush added the most debt, because the economy was also at its largest. So by using gross numbers, you are being deliberately obtuse. Just curious, what would Reagan's $1.7T debt increase translate in today's dollars? Something like $8T, right? So what Reagan did by tripling the debt in the 80's was the equivalent of adding $8T to the debt today. So it's hard to see how your argument lands on its feet beyond a purely obtuse, superficial view.

How else would you do it and how do you explain the 7.6 trillion Obama debt with no wars. Even with debt service of 250 per year that exceeds anything Bush ever generated and the reason is the economy is terrible, too many people on part time work, too many discouraged thus not paying anything, and too high of unemployment

 

[Conservative]

Human nature is exactly what I talked about. The wealthy didn't increase their spending as you all promised they would if they "kept more of their money". Your entire argument for 35 years was that wealth would trickle-down because the wealthy and businesses would spend more if they were allowed to keep more of their income. That wasn't true. So you argue in nothing but rhetoric when you argue human nature. Or, in reality, you argue against actual, empirical facts. We know the wealthy didn't increase their spending during Bush. So if it didn't happen for 14 years of Bush Tax Cuts, why would it suddenly start happening if we cut taxes further?




Can you drop the act? No one's buying it. The Federal Government needs to be funded. This is what you say too. You screech about deficits and debt, then when you produce those deficits and debt it's all good because "human nature". But the reality is that you deliberately create deficits and debt for the purpose of manufacturing budget crises so you can advance your narrow, ideological agenda of cutting social spending. That's all this is. That's your motivation. It's not about "keeping what you make", it's about starving the Treasury of revenue to force cuts to spending you otherwise can't legislate on your own. And as far as jealousy? Pfft. That pitiful argument is rhetorical nonsense and an obvious crutch you fall back on because you cannot reconcile the facts with your belief system. Shameful. Tsk tsk.

Please learn the line items in the Federal Budget and how much of that is truly the role of the Federal Govt. vs. the state and local governments. Any idea how many services at the local and state levels are duplicated at the Federal Level? Any idea how much politicians lie to you especially about the expenses. bet you didn't know that your SS and Medicare contributions has been spent on daily operating expenses and other social programs deemed important by the career politicians which did nothing but create dependence

If you took the line items I posted many times here and actually apply those required in the Constitution you would get about a 1.5 trillion dollar Federal Govt

 

[The Penguin]

Yes, of course I do

Then we have nothing else to discuss on the subject. This is exactly what I was talking about earlier...how you are ideologically opposed to something so you will do everything you can to attack it, even if that includes deliberately undermining the fiscal health of the nation and/or its programs. That's the motivation behind the Conservative attempts to attack SSDI. It's so transparent.

They are only solvent as long as our nation remains solvent.

Medicare and SS are self-funding. FICA, as you noted, pays for it. It's pay-go...it's always been that way. If anything, the Federal Government borrows from those Trusts because they're interest-free. Whether or not you think that is ethical is irrelevant. If anything, it proves that taxes do work and if we increased those taxes -or others- the government wouldn't have to borrow from those Trusts to meet its budget obligations. We also had a surplus back in 2000 that could have paid off the debt...in fact, Bush even gave a speech about it in his first address to Congress. But that surplus was erased and turned into record deficits that doubled the debt in 8 years. Not one teabag to be seen the entire time. Strange, wouldn't you agree?

What you don't understand is the Trust fund is now filled with IOU's that have to be funded.

The Social Security Trust Fund is solvent through 2033 and the Medicare Trust Fund is solvent through 2030.

Reality is the elimination of the Bush tax cuts on the rich would amount to 80 billion dollars if there is no behavioral change

Now who's arguing in rhetoric? Look man, in 2012 there were only two deficit reduction actions our government took that went into effect in 2013: The Sequester and the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts on income above $400K. The deficit, as I proved using actual facts, was reduced by $408B. The Sequester was merely $50B. So that means the remaining $358B came from the Bush Tax Cuts expiring on income above $400K...OR it means that the economy was so strong, so productive in 2012, that revenue exploded...in which case you cannot argue that Obama's been bad for the economy. So you really backed yourself into a rhetorical corner with this argument.

 

[Conservative]

The Penguin;1065093096]Then we have nothing else to discuss on the subject. This is exactly what I was talking about earlier...how you are ideologically opposed to something so you will do everything you can to attack it, even if that includes deliberately undermining the fiscal health of the nation and/or its programs. That's the motivation behind the Conservative attempts to attack SSDI. It's so transparent.

I was forced to contribute to SS when I started working. I worked for over 35 years and the return on that investment is miniscule. Had I been forced to put that money into a simple savings account over that same period of time, my return would have been more than double and the investment would be mine. I die my family gets very little whereas my contribution would have gone to them as it should with any insurance program. Only in the liberal world should my contribution go to someone else

Medicare and SS are self-funding. FICA, as you noted, pays for it. It's pay-go...it's always been that way. If anything, the Federal Government borrows from those Trusts because they're interest-free. Whether or not you think that is ethical is irrelevant. If anything, it proves that taxes do work and if we increased those taxes -or others- the government wouldn't have to borrow from those Trusts to meet its budget obligations. We also had a surplus back in 2000 that could have paid off the debt...in fact, Bush even gave a speech about it in his first address to Congress. But that surplus was erased and turned into record deficits that doubled the debt in 8 years. Not one teabag to be seen the entire time. Strange, wouldn't you agree?

Borrowing from those funds may be interest free but where does the money come from to pay for your retirement supplements? there was no surplus as Treasury shows because you and others buy the public debt number and not the total debt. Your SS and Medicare funds have been spent. Where is the money going to come from to pay you back?

The Social Security Trust Fund is solvent through 2033 and the Medicare Trust Fund is solvent through 2030.

Sorry but that includes the IOU's in that trust fund and those IOU's have to be funded

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/16/social-security-ious-stashed-away-in-wva/

Now who's arguing in rhetoric? Look man, in 2012 there were only two deficit reduction actions our government took that went into effect in 2013: The Sequester and the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts on income above $400K. The deficit, as I proved using actual facts, was reduced by $408B. The Sequester was merely $50B. So that means the remaining $358B came from the Bush Tax Cuts expiring on income above $400K...OR it means that the economy was so strong, so productive in 2012, that revenue exploded...in which case you cannot argue that Obama's been bad for the economy. So you really backed yourself into a rhetorical corner with this argument.

Sequester cut nothing, just slowed the growth of spending. The expiration of the Bush tax cuts did nothing to slow Federal spending and therein lies the problem. You don't seem to have a problem with how your Govt spends money but rather who pays that money. Your priorities are screwed up

The economic results prove Obama bad for the economy, nothing I say will ever change that reality. Worst recovery in the history of this nation because of zero leadership and very poor economic policies

Forbes Welcome

 

[The Penguin]

Do you not realize how minimal that is and why would you want to affect human behavior for such a puny amount?

More "human behavior"! Hilarious. Look man, all I'm doing is examining the deficit in 2012 vs. the deficit in 2013. There were only two deficit reduction actions we took in 2012: The Sequester (which was $50B in cuts for 2013), and the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts on the wealthy. The deficit was reduced by $408B that year. So if the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts on the wealthy isn't responsible for the $350B reduction in addition to the Sequester, what was?

What is it about liberals who don't understand that when you cut taxes you give people more spendable income including the rich

They don't spend it. I've been giving you this link twice now and you refuse to even look at it because it demolishes what you're saying. So now I have to actually quote it directly:

"America’s Wealthy Save Tax Cuts Rather Than Spend, Moody’s Says"

I don't understand why you continue clinging to this rhetoric. Rhetoric that has no proof. You cannot prove that anyone -let alone the wealthy- increase their spending from tax cuts. But there is proof, plenty of which, that indicates they don't. Instead, all the evidence we've seen is that they increase their savings and hoard their wealth. So your fundamental, guiding economic and fiscal principle is wrong.

Reagan cut FIT three years in a row and increased FIT revenue by over 60% because the economy was stimulated and we had 17 million new taxpayers.

Reagan also doubled the deficit and tripled the debt...no teabags for him? Secondly, no, Reagan's 1981 tax cut precipitated a recession that didn't end until the Fed lowered interest rates, Congress increased spending by $32B, and Reagan passed a tax hike in history in 1982 (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982), and then another one in 1986. Reagan raised taxes 11 times in total during his Presidency, almost all of which were on the middle class.

Reagan's debt was completely artificial since the crisis was rooted in the high interest rates. Reagan added the equivalent of $8T to the debt for nothing. Well, actually, he did have a reason...he wanted to deliberately manufacture a debt crisis to use that panic as an excuse to cut spending. It's the Conservative modus operandi. Of course, we are wise to it now.

How else would you do it and how do you explain the 7.6 trillion Obama debt with no wars.

No, that actually includes the wars you didn't pay for during Bush. Secondly, what I would do is calculate the amount Reagan grew the debt in relation to GDP.

Even with debt service of 250 per year that exceeds anything Bush ever generated and the reason is the economy is terrible, too many people on part time work, too many discouraged thus not paying anything

The economy isn't terrible. It's better than it was during Bush and Obama didn't need a housing bubble to pad his economic numbers like Bush did. Secondly, jobs come from demand. There is no demand because the middle class hasn't seen its wages increase since before Bush. So if you want the economy to move, you have to take the $2.1T that businesses are hoarding overseas, and give it to the millions of American workers who haven't had a raise in 15 years. That gets the economy growing again. So why don't these businesses take that hoarded wealth and pay their employees more? The answer is because tax cuts increased worker's take-home (giving a sense of getting a raise, though your actual wage doesn't go up), and banks made credit cheap and easy to get. So end the tax cuts, and raise interest rates. Then businesses will HAVE to give that money to workers just to keep the consumer economy going.

 

[The Penguin]

Please learn the line items in the Federal Budget and how much of that is truly the role of the Federal Govt. vs. the state and local governments.

Don't be condescending to me, particularly when the crux of your argument is the intangible, immeasurable "human behavior" that you fall back on like a crutch to explain away all the points of your argument that make no sense.

Any idea how many services at the local and state levels are duplicated at the Federal Level?

Don't care. You're the folks who added an entirely duplicate cabinet-level department in DHS. So you're the last people who should be lecturing us about red herrings like this. What I'm talking about is how tax cuts end up burdening the middle class through cuts at the state and local level. States like Mississippi rely on federal welfare to make up nearly 50% of their budgets. So if federal welfare is cut, because revenue has been cut, that results in states having to cut services to make up for the loss of revenue from DC. Where do you think those cuts end up going? To the state education systems and health care. Both of which the middle-class rely on heavily. So you cut revenue, which cuts fed funding to the states, which forces cuts at the state level, which results in education cuts, which results in higher tuition, which results in more out of the pockets of the middle class and/or debt burdens on students. Debt that will make it impossible for those students to be significant contributors to the consumer economy because if they're lucky enough to get a low-paying job, most of that paycheck goes to pay for the student loan that they had to take out because tuition rose at their state school because it suffered cuts from the state because the state got less from DC.

And that's all I'm gonna say about it.

 

[The Penguin]

I was forced to contribute to SS when I started working. I worked for over 35 years and the return on that investment is miniscule.

If you've been contributing to SS for 35 years, you are getting FAR FAR more back than you put in. And if you are worried about SS funding, there is a simple solution; remove the cap. The end.

Borrowing from those funds may be interest free but where does the money come from to pay for your retirement supplements?

You understand the government is not a person, right? That a government has no retirement to save for because it's not a person. You understand that, right? If so, why are you conflating personal retirement with the government's social security obligations? I don't understand the argument you're making here. You're flipping between two entirely different things within the same sentence. How is that even possible!? Anyway, I don't even know where you're going with this and I don't care.

Sorry but that includes the IOU's in that trust fund and those IOU's have to be funded

Which they are. Through 2030 and 2033 for Medicare and Social Security, respectively. Furthermore, it's very simple to extend that solvency; remove the cap on SS and raise the Medicare tax by .5% for businesses and people. That's all it takes.

Sequester cut nothing, just slowed the growth of spending.

Fine...then how did the deficit get reduced by $408B from 2012-2013? That was the largest deficit reduction EVER. Both in gross numbers and as a percentage of the deficit. So if you say the Sequester didn't result in spending reductions, how then did the deficit get reduced by $400B in just one year? The answer? The expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts OR a booming economy. But since you people say that Obama's economy is terrible, then the only answer is the ending of the Bush Tax Cuts.

Worst recovery in the history of this nation because of zero leadership and very poor economic policies

No, zero leadership and poor economic policies are what created the recession...lack of cooperation from the Conservatives is what lead to the "worst recovery". You all didn't pass a single thing the last 6 years. Nothing. It's all been Obama having to work with the Democrats, within the rules the Conservatives forced in the Senate. Conservatives had no interest in recovering the economy because they wanted to use a bad economy as a way to get elected in 2012. Since that tactic failed, they've decided to just stop governing altogether. The Republican Party is at war not with progressive government or the welfare state, it's at war with the institution of government. What a shame. No matter, demographics will wipe them out by 2020.

 

[Conservative]

The Penguin;1065093192]More "human behavior"! Hilarious. Look man, all I'm doing is examining the deficit in 2012 vs. the deficit in 2013. There were only two deficit reduction actions we took in 2012: The Sequester (which was $50B in cuts for 2013), and the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts on the wealthy. The deficit was reduced by $408B that year. So if the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts on the wealthy isn't responsible for the $350B reduction in addition to the Sequester, what was?

you can examine until hell freezes over and will find that there is still a deficit and that adds to the debt. What was responsible for the reduction was an increase in employment not any cutting of expenses. As for the deficit here are the Treasury numbers which show a deficit of 600 billion in fiscal year 2013 so not sure where you get your numbers or what you are talking about. In fiscal year 2012 it was 1.2 TRILLION. Treasury is the only source for financial numbers for that is what we pay debt service on

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

They don't spend it. I've been giving you this link twice now and you refuse to even look at it because it demolishes what you're saying. So now I have to actually quote it directly:

"America’s Wealthy Save Tax Cuts Rather Than Spend, Moody’s Says"

Don't really care what your link says only what Treasury says. Treasury is the official source of financial dataI don't understand why you continue clinging to this rhetoric. Nor do I care what someone else does with their money, why do you? Again, hold the govt. responsible for what they spend rather than worry about what they collect

Reagan also doubled the deficit and tripled the debt...no teabags for him? Secondly, no, Reagan's 1981 tax cut precipitated a recession that didn't end until the Fed lowered interest rates, Congress increased spending by $32B, and Reagan passed a tax hike in history in 1982 (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982), and then another one in 1986. Reagan raised taxes 11 times in total during his Presidency, almost all of which were on the middle class.

Yes, Reagan took the debt from 900 billion to 2.6 trillion but also took GDP from 2.6 trillion to 5.2 trillion so what percentage of GDP was the debt? He did raise USE taxes which apparently you don't understand. If you don't use the services you don't pay the taxes. FIT stands for Federal INCOME Taxes and that is what was cut with all taxpayers getting to keep more of what they earned and that led to 17 million new taxpayers.

Reagan's debt was completely artificial since the crisis was rooted in the high interest rates. Reagan added the equivalent of $8T to the debt for nothing. Well, actually, he did have a reason...he wanted to deliberately manufacture a debt crisis to use that panic as an excuse to cut spending. It's the Conservative modus operandi. Of course, we are wise to it now.

Again, I am getting very tired of convincing people like you the benefit of keeping more of what you earn. By the way the budget of the U.S. when Reagan left office was 1 trillion dollars

No, that actually includes the wars you didn't pay for during Bush. Secondly, what I would do is calculate the amount Reagan grew the debt in relation to GDP.

The war costs are in the 4.9 trillion Bush debt and as for the percentage of GDP, I did that was is 2.6 trillion as a percentage of 5.2 trillion GDP? Why are you having such a problem understanding that liberalism has lied to you

The economy isn't terrible. It's better than it was during Bush and Obama didn't need a housing bubble to pad his economic numbers like Bush did. Secondly, jobs come from demand. There is no demand because the middle class hasn't seen its wages increase since before Bush. So if you want the economy to move, you have to take the $2.1T that businesses are hoarding overseas, and give it to the millions of American workers who haven't had a raise in 15 years. That gets the economy growing again. So why don't these businesses take that hoarded wealth and pay their employees more? The answer is because tax cuts increased worker's take-home (giving a sense of getting a raise, though your actual wage doesn't go up), and banks made credit cheap and easy to get. So end the tax cuts, and raise interest rates. Then businesses will HAVE to give that money to workers just to keep the consumer economy going.

I gave you the FORBES article which you ignored. I can go to BEA.gov, BLS.gov, and Treasury but those would be a waste of time too. You bought the liberal rhetoric and nothing is going to change your mind

 

[Conservative]

The Penguin;1065093254]If you've been contributing to SS for 35 years, you are getting FAR FAR more back than you put in. And if you are worried about SS funding, there is a simple solution; remove the cap. The end.

Wow, that ignorance is staggering. Use a simple calculator, put in your monthly contribution, put in average interest rates and see how much you would have when you retire?

You understand the government is not a person, right? That a government has no retirement to save for because it's not a person. You understand that, right? If so, why are you conflating personal retirement with the government's social security obligations? I don't understand the argument you're making here. You're flipping between two entirely different things within the same sentence. How is that even possible!? Anyway, I don't even know where you're going with this and I don't care.

What Govt. social responsibility? You think it is the government's responsibility to force you to save for your retirement? You really don't understand SS and Medicare do you? You certainly don't understand a simple savings account and interest on that account vs what you get from the govt.

Which they are. Through 2030 and 2033 for Medicare and Social Security, respectively. Furthermore, it's very simple to extend that solvency; remove the cap on SS and raise the Medicare tax by .5% for businesses and people. That's all it takes.

Really? very simple? looks like it has been very simple indoctrinating you into the liberal ideology and belief that spending in the name of compassion generates compassionate results. You really have no idea what you are talking about

Fine...then how did the deficit get reduced by $408B from 2012-2013? That was the largest deficit reduction EVER. Both in gross numbers and as a percentage of the deficit. So if you say the Sequester didn't result in spending reductions, how then did the deficit get reduced by $400B in just one year? The answer? The expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts OR a booming economy. But since you people say that Obama's economy is terrible, then the only answer is the ending of the Bush Tax Cuts.

payroll tax increases, more employment but still not enough to fund the govt. as the 600 billion deficit shows. Taxes on the rich contributed 54 billion to 2015 or didn't you bother to read the liberal NY Times article?

No, zero leadership and poor economic policies are what created the recession...lack of cooperation from the Conservatives is what lead to the "worst recovery". You all didn't pass a single thing the last 6 years. Nothing. It's all been Obama having to work with the Democrats, within the rules the Conservatives forced in the Senate. Conservatives had no interest in recovering the economy because they wanted to use a bad economy as a way to get elected in 2012. Since that tactic failed, they've decided to just stop governing altogether. The Republican Party is at war not with progressive government or the welfare state, it's at war with the institution of government. What a shame. No matter, demographics will wipe them out by 2020.

Here we go again no cooperation on the part of conservatives? Name for me the economic policies Obama didn't get his first two years in office and what we got for it? you want a king, therefore Obama is your man. Neither he or you understand leadership or building a consensus. Obama is a college professor with zero leadership skills and that is the way he governs, my way or the highway.

 

[Rentoc]

Really? You seemed smarter than that. You tried to deflect from the republicans' disgusting un-American scorched earth policy of obstructionism with “wah wah Vern posts fallacies” and then posted examples what you consider fallacies. I proved they were only fallacies in your imagination. Bush telling you the Bush Mortgage Bubble started late 2004 more than meets conservative standards of “it happened on his watch” hence, not a fallacy. Me proving it happened on Bush’s watch because of Bush’s policies is just a bonus. And I’m sorry, your continued fallacy of “dems do it too” is you saying republicans do it. And it’s a fallacy. Democrats have never had a disgusting un-American scorched earth policy of obstructionism. Whining “they forced bush to raise taxes” is not only funny but it’s you again posting “dems do it too”.

And rentoc, I couldn’t help but notice you’re not addressing the examples I posted of the republican’s disgusting un-American scorched earth policy of obstructionism (debt default, shutdown, ExIm bank). It’s kinda how a debate works. I make a point and then give an example. We discuss if the examples prove my point. I can’t help but notice you’re avoiding the examples I provided to prove my point. Your deflections from the examples basically tell me I’m right. Remember when you attempted to provide examples of me posting fallacies and I shredded your point with bush’s own words? So I know you understand how a debate works.

As far as your repeated attempt to show “dems do it too” (even though you keep denying you’re not making that point as you make it) is republicans always talk about balanced budgets but never do it even when they could. That alone blows up your hilarious example. But if you want to pretend bush really meant it your example still blows up. Dems didn’t just suddenly oppose and obstruct everything bush wanted, even things they’d previously supported, because of some disgusting un-American scorched earth policy of obstructionism. And get this, the dems agenda wasn’t to sabotage the economy. Republicans opposed everything President Obama wanted to help the economy. Republicans even opposed things they previously supported (or claimed to support) be it mandates, tax cuts, stimulus, or reducing the deficit. So not only have I proven the republicans had a disgusting un-American scorched earth policy of obstructionism, I shredded your “mean ole dems did it to bush” narrative.

"Debating" with Vern

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv2rEa7iqhA

 

[Vern]

"Debating" with Vern

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv2rEa7iqhA

thank you rentoc. I realize conservatives can never just post "wow vern, you're right". But in your own special way you've just posted "wow Vern, you really weren't posting fallacies when you post "bush mortgage bubble" or "great bush recession". Using bush's own words proved it. And you're right I was deflecting from your examples of the republican’s disgusting un-American scorched earth policy of obstructionism such as shutting down the govt, threatening to default on the debt and the still inexplicable shutting down the ExIm bank. And vern, even I had to laugh at my posts saying dems forced Bush 1 to raise taxes".

again, thank you.

 

[Conservative]

thank you rentoc. I realize conservatives can never just post "wow vern, you're right". But in your own special way you've just posted "wow Vern, you really weren't posting fallacies when you post "bush mortgage bubble" or "great bush recession". Using bush's own words proved it. And you're right I was deflecting from your examples of the republican’s disgusting un-American scorched earth policy of obstructionism such as shutting down the govt, threatening to default on the debt and the still inexplicable shutting down the ExIm bank. And vern, even I had to laugh at my posts saying dems forced Bush 1 to raise taxes".

again, thank you.

Why would you want anyone to lie? You distort and divert never posting anything without a slanted spin, To you Republicans bad, liberals good regardless of the results

 

[Rentoc]

Why would you want anyone to lie? You distort and divert never posting anything without a slanted spin, To you Republicans bad, liberals good regardless of the results

That's why I posted the video. It took me a while, but I finally realized that no matter what I said (or didn't say) the response was gong to be the same. Kinda like politicians and slanted media do. You know, say it enough and it becomes accepted as truth. You can't argue or debate with someone who no matter what responds with the same mantra or meme.

 

[The Penguin]

you can examine until hell freezes over and will find that there is still a deficit and that adds to the debt.

Now you are purposefully ignoring the conversation and seeking to avoid admitting that which we all know...that ending the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy had a huge impact on the deficit from 2012-2013. You keep screeching about debt, but that's not what I'm talking about. I am talking about the deficit...and Obama reduced the deficit by $408B from 2012 to 2013. What was the reason for that reduction? You said the Sequester didn't cut spending...well the only other deficit reduction action taken that year was letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire on income above $400K. So that's the only thing responsible for the $400B deficit reduction. Unless it's the economy...but you say that Obama's economy is "terrible", so it has to be the tax cuts. That's it.

What was responsible for the reduction was an increase in employment not any cutting of expenses.

Ahhhh...so now you're saying we had a booming economy in 2012? Well that's weird because a post ago you were saying Obama's economy has been "terrible". So you can't have it both ways...you can't credit the massive deficit reduction to a booming economy in one post, then say that Obama's economy has been terrible in another post. You've backed yourself into a rhetorical corner. All for what reason? To avoid admitting that the actions Obama took either helped the economy OR reduced the deficit by letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the rich.

 

[Conservative]

Now you are purposefully ignoring the conversation and seeking to avoid admitting that which we all know...that ending the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy had a huge impact on the deficit from 2012-2013. You keep screeching about debt, but that's not what I'm talking about. I am talking about the deficit...and Obama reduced the deficit by $408B from 2012 to 2013. What was the reason for that reduction? You said the Sequester didn't cut spending...well the only other deficit reduction action taken that year was letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire on income above $400K. So that's the only thing responsible for the $400B deficit reduction. Unless it's the economy...but you say that Obama's economy is "terrible", so it has to be the tax cuts. That's it.



Ahhhh...so now you're saying we had a booming economy in 2012? Well that's weird because a post ago you were saying Obama's economy has been "terrible". So you can't have it both ways...you can't credit the massive deficit reduction to a booming economy in one post, then say that Obama's economy has been terrible in another post. You've backed yourself into a rhetorical corner. All for what reason? To avoid admitting that the actions Obama took either helped the economy OR reduced the deficit by letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the rich.

No, what you are seeing is the affects of elimination of the FICA(Payroll) tax cuts on the total budget which includes SS and Medicare. Reducing the deficit and still keeping them at record levels is only an accomplishment to Obama apologists

There is no booming economy as BEA.gov shows but then again official data that is irrefutable is irrelevant to you

 

[Conservative]

Here is what the Obama apologists want to ignore
.
NEARLY HALF OF US HOUSEHOLDS ESCAPE FEDERAL INCOME... - AARP Online Community

You will notice these aren't rich people so when people claim it is the rich not paying their fair share they ignore this report. One has to ask yourself is it really realistic that almost 50% of the American income earners cannot pay anything in Federal Income Taxes to support things like national defense? How about $100 a year or a simple flat tax?

All this is nothing more than a diversion on the part of our "leaders" to the fact that Govt. spends too much thus it is important to focus on how much revenue isn't being generated from those who pay the Federal Income Taxes thus we need to eliminate tax cuts for those people so they pay more, never addressing the issue of govt. spending or collecting something from those who pay NO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES

By the way, the comments are always that people pay other taxes which is true but those taxes are USE taxes not designed to fund the daily operating expenses of the Federal govt. but rather for the purpose of doing things like paying for roads and infrastructure or Medicare/SS. Federal Taxes do not fund teachers, police, fire, or normal healthcare costs for the uninsured

It is my hope that people here finally learn about the unified budget, what taxes they pay, and the purpose of those taxes. I will keep hammering this and of course will continue to be ignored

 

[The Penguin]

Yes, Reagan took the debt from 900 billion to 2.6 trillion but also took GDP from 2.6 trillion to 5.2 trillion so what percentage of GDP was the debt?

Looks like 50% my man. On December 31st, 1980 GDP was $6.5T. You say debt was $900B when Reagan took office. So that means debt was just 14% of GDP when Carter left office. Reagan took that up to 50% of GDP.

FIT stands for Federal INCOME Taxes and that is what was cut with all taxpayers getting to keep more of what they earned and that led to 17 million new taxpayers.

No, what led to 17 million new taxpayers was people joning the workforce, which had nothing to do with the tax cut. In fact, from the time Reagan cut taxes in 1981 to the time the Fed began lowering interest rates in 1983, unemployment went from 8.3% in November 1981 (when Reagan's tax cut was passed) up to 10.8% by December 1982. Then the Fed started lowering interest rates in 1983 and magically unemployment starts dropping. Funny how that works, isn't it? The recession was all about the high interest rates which were 17% when Reagan took office. Then they were lowered to -what- 3% by 1983. So obviously the Fed had everything to do with growing the economy, not Reagan's tax cuts.

Again, I am getting very tired of convincing people like you the benefit of keeping more of what you earn.

You keep insisting there's a benefit but you can't put it in empirical terms. There is no benefit to lower taxes. It raises costs for the middle class as I showed you with college costs, and the wealthy do not spend more, as I showed you from the link here. So why are you still arguing this?

The war costs are in the 4.9 trillion Bush debt

No, they're not. That was the whole point of keeping the war costs separate in their own budget. They are not included in Bush's debt because he never budgeted for them. The war debt was its own separate thing until Obama put it in the actual budget.

I gave you the FORBES article which you ignored.

I don't make it my business to get involved in editorial nonsense. Obama's economy has grown more in 6 1/2 years than Bush's did in 8. That's a fact. It's also a fact that Obama's economy has created 7.7M net private sector jobs in 6 1/2 years after Bush lost net 460,000 jobs after 8 years. I'm all for you going to BEA and BLS to prove your argument. But you don't do that. What specific numbers are you even going to be able to pull to make your argument? That's what I want to know. Becuase all you people do is keep falling back on the debt hysteria. Debt which you're responsible for since you erased a surplus and turned it into record deficits that doubled the debt. We could have paid the debt off if you all hadn't done anything. But you couldn't even do nothing right.

 

[Conservative]

The Penguin;1065096447]Looks like 50% my man. On December 31st, 1980 GDP was $6.5T. You say debt was $900B when Reagan took office. So that means debt was just 14% of GDP when Carter left office. Reagan took that up to 50% of GDP.

Where in the hell do you get your information? BEA.gov does not show that information and what you are looking at appears to be inflation adjusted numbers which are what liberals do when they cannot honestly discuss actual results. 1980 results were in 1980 dollars not current dollars and taking GDP from 2.6 trillion to 5.2 trillion is 100% not 50%

No, what led to 17 million new taxpayers was people joning the workforce, which had nothing to do with the tax cut. In fact, from the time Reagan cut taxes in 1981 to the time the Fed began lowering interest rates in 1983, unemployment went from 8.3% in November 1981 (when Reagan's tax cut was passed) up to 10.8% by December 1982. Then the Fed started lowering interest rates in 1983 and magically unemployment starts dropping. Funny how that works, isn't it? The recession was all about the high interest rates which were 17% when Reagan took office. Then they were lowered to -what- 3% by 1983. So obviously the Fed had everything to do with growing the economy, not Reagan's tax cuts.

Yes, more people entered the workforce, why? Because there were opportunities and jobs created. Wow, is this truly your belief? Reagan tax cuts weren't passed until the end of 1981 but then again you ignore that reality. Lowering interest rates would affect the stock market and have very little to due with consumer demand but tax cuts put more money into their pockets. If you don't have a job what good are lower interest rates? What do you do with more spendable income in your paycheck?

You keep insisting there's a benefit but you can't put it in empirical terms. There is no benefit to lower taxes. It raises costs for the middle class as I showed you with college costs, and the wealthy do not spend more, as I showed you from the link here. So why are you still arguing this?

Really? so when you have more spendable income because of lower taxes taken out of your paycheck that doesn't impact your behavior?

No, they're not. That was the whole point of keeping the war costs separate in their own budget. They are not included in Bush's debt because he never budgeted for them. The war debt was its own separate thing until Obama put it in the actual budget.

Wrong which is why you have to take a civics class. All expenses paid in the fiscal year including off budget items are part of the deficit for that year. Doesn't matter what Bush budgeted but rather what was spent. That is basic accounting. the budget is a guideline but has nothing to do with what was actually spent. Same principle holds true with you. You budget for the year and expenses come in outside the budget, they are paid and are part of your yearly financials. please learn research your claims before posting them

I don't make it my business to get involved in editorial nonsense. Obama's economy has grown more in 6 1/2 years than Bush's did in 8. That's a fact. It's also a fact that Obama's economy has created 7.7M net private sector jobs in 6 1/2 years after Bush lost net 460,000 jobs after 8 years. I'm all for you going to BEA and BLS to prove your argument. But you don't do that. What specific numbers are you even going to be able to pull to make your argument? That's what I want to know. Becuase all you people do is keep falling back on the debt hysteria. Debt which you're responsible for since you erased a surplus and turned it into record deficits that doubled the debt. We could have paid the debt off if you all hadn't done anything. But you couldn't even do nothing right.

That is a lie and not supported by Treasury or BEA data. you make wild claims you cannot support. Bush took GDP up 4.5 trillion dollars and Obama has increased it 2.5 trillion. Please post verifiable not partisan BEA data to support your claims

Obama's in 7 years has created 7.2 million jobs but in 7 years Bush created over 9 million, BLS.gov. Further Obama took office promising to bring us back to pre recession levels and it took him 7 years to do that which isn't leadership. December 2007 146 million employed, 2015 149 million employed

not sure where you get your information but suggest you go to BLS.gov, BEA.gov, and Treasury

 

[The Penguin]

Use a simple calculator, put in your monthly contribution, put in average interest rates and see how much you would have when you retire?

Ummm...it doesn't sound like you know what you're talking about. If you've been contributing to SS for 35 years what you will get out of SS will be greater than what you put in. That's not because of "interest" it's because of inflation. A dollar 35 years ago doesn't go as far as a dollar does today. What you get out of Social Security when you retire will be more than what you put in. That's just a function of inflation. Social Security is also pay-go...so you aren't contributing SS into your own separate SS account that is earmarked just for you. The benefits you receive when you collect them will be paid for by those who are contributing to SS at the time you collect benefits. SS isn't like a 401k.

What Govt. social responsibility? You think it is the government's responsibility to force you to save for your retirement? You really don't understand SS and Medicare do you? You certainly don't understand a simple savings account and interest on that account vs what you get from the govt.

What are you talking about? Social responsibility? I never talked about that. All I said was that it's incorrect to pretend that the debt obligations the federal government has is the same as debt obligations an individual or a business has. Government doesn't save for retirement because government isn't a person. Social Security and Medicare are pay-go, meaning that those benefits being collected now are paid by those working now. That's the whole point of the entitlement program. Social Security isn't a savings account...but you seem to think it is. I've never said it was. You have been trying to conflate it with several different things now and each time you do, it makes your argument even weaker.

Really? very simple? looks like it has been very simple indoctrinating you into the liberal ideology and belief that spending in the name of compassion generates compassionate results.

Medicare and Social Security are the two most popular and beneficial programs our government runs. Your ideology of tax cuts hasn't produced one single measurable positive statistic in 35 years. In fact, all your belief system has given us has been debt. That's it.

payroll tax increases, more employment but still not enough to fund the govt. as the 600 billion deficit shows.

Payroll tax increases? Which payroll taxes were increased, specifically, and by how much? Well, I guess we're making progress since you're admitting now that tax increases do reduce the deficit. So you are saying payroll tax increases are the reason the deficit was reduced by $400B from 2012-2013. And BTW - the current deficit is $420B, not $600B. From where did you get that $600B number? Were you not reading my post closely? That $600B deficit number was the deficit for 2013. It's 2015.

Taxes on the rich contributed 54 billion to 2015 or didn't you bother to read the liberal NY Times article?

We're not talking 2015, we're talking 2013. You keep trying to change what we're talking about. I'm not talking 2015, I'm talking specifically about the reduction in the deficit that happened from 2012-2013. You first denied that tax cuts were the reason for that reduction, citing instead that it was an increase of jobs. Then you realized that meant what you were saying about Obama's economy was wrong. So now you've changed the reason AGAIN, this time saying it was "payroll taxes", but you don't say which payroll taxes it was. I think you know that letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the wealthy was the main driver of that $408B deficit reduction in 2013, but you just don't want to admit it. Remember, you first said that the reduction had nothing to do with tax increases, now you've backtracked on that from earlier to say that tax increases DID reduce the deficit.

So which payroll taxes were increased and by how much?

 

[rhinefire]

The OP is obviously from a Harvard student.

 

[Conservative]

Ummm...it doesn't sound like you know what you're talking about. If you've been contributing to SS for 35 years what you will get out of SS will be greater than what you put in. That's not because of "interest" it's because of inflation. A dollar 35 years ago doesn't go as far as a dollar does today. What you get out of Social Security when you retire will be more than what you put in. That's just a function of inflation. Social Security is also pay-go...so you aren't contributing SS into your own separate SS account that is earmarked just for you. The benefits you receive when you collect them will be paid for by those who are contributing to SS at the time you collect benefits. SS isn't like a 401k.




What are you talking about? Social responsibility? I never talked about that. All I said was that it's incorrect to pretend that the debt obligations the federal government has is the same as debt obligations an individual or a business has. Government doesn't save for retirement because government isn't a person. Social Security and Medicare are pay-go, meaning that those benefits being collected now are paid by those working now. That's the whole point of the entitlement program. Social Security isn't a savings account...but you seem to think it is. I've never said it was. You have been trying to conflate it with several different things now and each time you do, it makes your argument even weaker.




Medicare and Social Security are the two most popular and beneficial programs our government runs. Your ideology of tax cuts hasn't produced one single measurable positive statistic in 35 years. In fact, all your belief system has given us has been debt. That's it.




Payroll tax increases? Which payroll taxes were increased, specifically, and by how much? Well, I guess we're making progress since you're admitting now that tax increases do reduce the deficit. So you are saying payroll tax increases are the reason the deficit was reduced by $400B from 2012-2013. And BTW - the current deficit is $420B, not $600B. From where did you get that $600B number? Were you not reading my post closely? That $600B deficit number was the deficit for 2013. It's 2015.




We're not talking 2015, we're talking 2013. You keep trying to change what we're talking about. I'm not talking 2015, I'm talking specifically about the reduction in the deficit that happened from 2012-2013. You first denied that tax cuts were the reason for that reduction, citing instead that it was an increase of jobs. Then you realized that meant what you were saying about Obama's economy was wrong. So now you've changed the reason AGAIN, this time saying it was "payroll taxes", but you don't say which payroll taxes it was. I think you know that letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the wealthy was the main driver of that $408B deficit reduction in 2013, but you just don't want to admit it. Remember, you first said that the reduction had nothing to do with tax increases, now you've backtracked on that from earlier to say that tax increases DID reduce the deficit.

So which payroll taxes were increased and by how much?

This is going nowhere and a waste of time. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty? You ignore official govt. data to support claims by leftwing websites and various economic OPINIONS. Keep ignoring actual data and keep making Obama's beliefs true that you can indeed fool some of the people all of the time.

I am done giving you the data, giving you the sites, giving you actual results only to be countered with more opinion and poor civics understanding. Sorry but your comments regarding tax revenue are totally false and not supported by any verifiable sources other but rather your own opinions because that is what you want to believe

 

[The Penguin]

Here we go again no cooperation on the part of conservatives?

Mitch McConnell very famously said his #1 priority was to deny Obama a second term. That doesn't sound cooperative to me. Conservatives have never, ever went along with Obama's major goals. Conservatives have never, ever produced a Jobs Bill (and prevented many from even getting a vote). Conservatives made their strategy obstruction and that strategy goes all the way back to Obama's inauguration. It's no coincidence that Conservatives have shut down the government, filibustered or threatened to filibuster, and obstructed at unprecedented levels every thing Obama wants to do. And I don't understand why. After you all drove the car into a ditch during Bush, you have the nerve to accuse Obama or his policies of being destructive? Ha! That's a joke, right?


"Name for me the economic policies Obama didn't get his first two years in office"

Cap-and-trade, Immigration Reform, Single-payer health care, Employee Free Choice Act, infrastructure bank, a Jobs Bill. Heck, he had to make the Stimulus 2/3 tax cuts just to get 60 Democrats to support it!

Neither he or you understand leadership or building a consensus.

Ah...so let's look at the consensus building you Conservatives did when Bush was President...let's see did you get worldwide consensus to invade Iraq? Nope. Did you get worldwide consensus to stop Iran or North Korea's nuke programs? Nope. Did you get consensus domestically to reform Social Security? Nope. You had to have Cheney vote to pass the Bush Tax Cuts, and wasn't the Energy Bill passed in a vote in like, 3 in the morning? Wasn't that when Boehner was handing out checks to people on the floor of the House? Or was that another time that Conservatives built "consensus"? What leadership have you all shown in the last 15 years? None. You have control over both Houses of Congress now and you can't even pass a simple bill extending the funding of government without help from the Democrats because your own party is a disaster. Consensus? So is that why Boehner quit in the middle of his term? Because "consensus"?

 

[Conservative]

Mitch McConnell very famously said his #1 priority was to deny Obama a second term. That doesn't sound cooperative to me. Conservatives have never, ever went along with Obama's major goals. Conservatives have never, ever produced a Jobs Bill (and prevented many from even getting a vote). Conservatives made their strategy obstruction and that strategy goes all the way back to Obama's inauguration. It's no coincidence that Conservatives have shut down the government, filibustered or threatened to filibuster, and obstructed at unprecedented levels every thing Obama wants to do. And I don't understand why. After you all drove the car into a ditch during Bush, you have the nerve to accuse Obama or his policies of being destructive? Ha! That's a joke, right?


"Name for me the economic policies Obama didn't get his first two years in office"

Cap-and-trade, Immigration Reform, Single-payer health care, Employee Free Choice Act, infrastructure bank, a Jobs Bill. Heck, he had to make the Stimulus 2/3 tax cuts just to get 60 Democrats to support it!




Ah...so let's look at the consensus building you Conservatives did when Bush was President...let's see did you get worldwide consensus to invade Iraq? Nope. Did you get worldwide consensus to stop Iran or North Korea's nuke programs? Nope. Did you get consensus domestically to reform Social Security? Nope. You had to have Cheney vote to pass the Bush Tax Cuts, and wasn't the Energy Bill passed in a vote in like, 3 in the morning? Wasn't that when Boehner was handing out checks to people on the floor of the House? Or was that another time that Conservatives built "consensus"? What leadership have you all shown in the last 15 years? None. You have control over both Houses of Congress now and you can't even pass a simple bill extending the funding of government without help from the Democrats because your own party is a disaster. Consensus? So is that why Boehner quit in the middle of his term? Because "consensus"?

Yes, he did in 2010 AFTER the failed stimulus and ACA. Absolutely amazing how you totally ignore leadership responsibility and history

 

[The Penguin]

No, what you are seeing is the affects of elimination of the FICA(Payroll) tax cuts on the total budget

Sigh...according to the CBO, the elimination of the Payroll Tax Cut increased revenues by $103B. The elimination of the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy increased revenue by $184B. So eliminating the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy was the largest source of new revenue and the main driver of the deficit reduction, according to the CBO.

There is no booming economy

But you said this...

What was responsible for the reduction was an increase in employment not any cutting of expenses.

So here, Conservative is trying to have it both ways. He's trying to downplay the impact on the deficit eliminating the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy had by saying the deficit reduction came from an increase in employment. That was your original position. However, you painted yourself into a rhetorical corner because you can't say that Obama's economy is terrible while also saying so many jobs were created that it reduced the deficit by the largest amount ever. You see the cognitive dissonance there? Now you are trying to say that the Payroll Tax Cut was the main driver of the deficit reduction, but that is wrong too because the CBO says the main driver was the elimination of the Bush Tax Cuts for the rich. That brought in $184B more revenue. The Payroll Tax Cut expiration brought in $103B. So which is greater? $184B or $103B? Also, corporate tax increases brought in an additional $31B, and the increase in the Estate Tax brought in an additional $5B.

So the argument that tax increases don't reduce the deficit is wrong, isn't it?