Wingnuts and their "tax-and-spend" attacks on Dems.

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Wingnuts and their

    "Baby Bush" and "Ronnie Raygun"....

    The intellectual colossus of the progressive movement, Mr airborne, dazzles us with his razor sharp wit... 

    "The facts"..... that chart doesnt come close to any facts...it is delusional, assuming massive , massive, massive tax increases without a penny of government spending trimmed. A moonbat wet dream.

    "If Bush had balanced the budget"..with a Democratic Congress, not possible...

    "A debt growing like this is hard to stop because when the government cuts spending or raises taxes, the two things that balance the budget, it hurts the economy. And since the economy Obama was handed was collapsing at the rate of 10 million jobs per year, that was not an option."

    Quit the whining! Obama has been in office 5 years, his economic record is abysmal.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Wingnuts and their

     Historically tax cuts have always paid for themselves.  Federal revenue increased after the JFK tax cuts, after the Reagan tax cuts, after the Clinton tax cuts, and after the Bush tax cuts.  The problem has not been taxes.  The problem has been runaway spending.  Total federal spending has not dropped once in over 40 years—not once:

     ·      Under LBJ revenue grew by 25%, but spending grew by 24%. 

    ·      Under Nixon revenue grew by 17%, but spending grew by 21%.

    ·      Under Ford revenue grew by 11%, but spending grew by 22%.

    ·      Under Carter revenue grew by 20%, but spending grew by 13%.

    ·      Under Reagan revenue grew by 15%, but spending grew by 25%.

    ·      Under Bush Sr. revenue grew by 17%, but spending grew by 18%.

    ·      Under Clinton revenue grew by 35%, but spending grew by 9%.

    ·      Under Bush Jr. revenue grew by 10%, but spending grew by 25%.

     

    If we would just stop spending so much money, we would have a surplus, taxes could be even lower than they are now, and we could start paying off the national debt.  The problem isn’t that we aren’t being taxed enough.  The problem is that the government is spending too much money.

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Wingnuts and their

    In response to Newtster's comment:

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    In response to Newtster's comment:

     

    This is old news. Just another attempt to distract from the truth of Obama's record. It was proof bullshiite a long time ago.

    Got anything useful to say?  No.

     




     

    Oh ya, I forgot, all whacko wingnuts have to do is spout some nonsense about 'librul media' or 'it's not true because I say so' and then declare their ideologically informed opinion is the real truth, inspite of the dearth of anything even remotely resembling facts.

    Oh ya, don't forget to add the 'boom' at the end.

    Because you don't reallly win an argument until you say 'boom'.

     



    The only argument I have is that Obama's spending history is totally misrepresented, but that's OK. If  you want to believe that Obama has spending under control, go ahead, be an idiot. I would expect nothing less from you.

    Plus I never said anything about the librul media.




    Obama's spending history is totally misrepresented

    If you have an argument here, support it.  When you drop a generalization and walk away mumbling about uninformed voters on the other side of the aisle - how can you be expect anybody to take you seriously?

    We know exactly what added to the debt / deficit under Bush, right?  Two wars, tax cuts, Medicare part D and TARP.  We know what added to the debt / deficit under Obama, right?  The stimulus.  So defend your position that Obama is big spender.  What has he been spending money on?

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Wingnuts and their

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     Historically tax cuts have always paid for themselves.  Federal revenue increased after the JFK tax cuts, after the Reagan tax cuts, after the Clinton tax cuts, and after the Bush tax cuts.  The problem has not been taxes.  The problem has been runaway spending.  Total federal spending has not dropped once in over 40 years—not once:

     ·      Under LBJ revenue grew by 25%, but spending grew by 24%. 

    ·      Under Nixon revenue grew by 17%, but spending grew by 21%.

    ·      Under Ford revenue grew by 11%, but spending grew by 22%.

    ·      Under Carter revenue grew by 20%, but spending grew by 13%.

    ·      Under Reagan revenue grew by 15%, but spending grew by 25%.

    ·      Under Bush Sr. revenue grew by 17%, but spending grew by 18%.

    ·      Under Clinton revenue grew by 35%, but spending grew by 9%.

    ·      Under Bush Jr. revenue grew by 10%, but spending grew by 25%.

     

    If we would just stop spending so much money, we would have a surplus, taxes could be even lower than they are now, and we could start paying off the national debt.  The problem isn’t that we aren’t being taxed enough.  The problem is that the government is spending too much money.

     



    Most of the money we spend is mandatory spending - it's tied to population growth and market conditions.  Nobody decides to spend more on Medicare from one year to the next - it just happens.

    Tax cuts don't pay for themselves - a 10% increase in revenues under Bush is terrible if GDP grew 40%.  GDP doubled under Reagan - largely because of massive government spending.  We only saw a 15% revenue increase from that?  You're disproving your own point.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Wingnuts and their

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    What has he been spending money on?



    They dishonestly count the hit to revenue from two exploded but previously huge bubbles as "Obama spending"

     

     

     




    That's not just dishonest - it defies logic.  If you take a paycut at your job, do you suddenly have a spending problem?

     

     

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Wingnuts and their

    "The fact is that as the economy was steadily growing under Ronnie-Raygun, tax receipts were steadily declining, relative to that growth.."

    LOL... Reagan took office with a worse economy than Obama did...Reagan's policies led to the greatest economic boom in US history..Reagan's tax cuts led to increasing revenue for the government..

    Yet the Government lapdog airborne complains because tax receipts didnt increase at as fast a rate as the economy boomed....

    What a maroon.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Wingnuts and their

    "So how can you have a spending problem when receipts are at historic lows.

    Not since 1950 have tax receipts been at this low a level."

    Why? Because Obama's massive spending and deficits tanked the economy to "historic lows" !!!  There were fewer successful people around to steal their money.

    As Margaret Thatcher put it, eventually socialists run out of other people's money.

    "Tax receipts low"....what a crock.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Wingnuts and their

    "Errrrr..... the economy tanked over a year before Obama first took office. It stopped tanking after he took office."

    Errrr... "Under Obama, America Suffers Worst Economic Recovery In U.S. History"

    ..... as of the just completed quarter, US GDP "growth" since the "recovery" is now the worst in US history, having just dipped below the heretofore lowest on record.

    GDP recovery_0.jpg

    Every prior recession resulted in a robust recovery...the deeper the recession , the quicker and more robust the recovery...but not Obama's !

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Wingnuts and their

    Cherry picking numbers again, arent we?

    When Ronald Reagan took office America was suffering double-digit inflation, with the CPI (Consumer Price Index) registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years). The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped by anyone , at least it couldn’t be fixed without a calamitous economic collapse (heard that one before too). However, by the end of 1983 (Reagan’s third full year as President) , inflation rates had fallen to 3.22% which is only slightly higher that the inflation rate at the end of 2011 (Obama’s third full year as President) which stood at 3.15%. However, Obama was not handed the same hand when it comes to inflation. In fact in the two years leading up to Obama’s first term, the inflation rates were 2.85% in 2007 and 3.85% in 2008. Again, Ronald Reagan was handed a much worse hand than was Barrack Obama.

    Not to mention that all of the above was accompanied by double digit interest rates in the early 80s, with the rate peaking at 14.14% in 1981. The poverty rate started increasing in 1978, eventually climbing by an astounding 33%, from 11.4% to 15.2%, but by the end of his presidency Reagan had managed to stop the upward trend and lowered the poverty level back to 14%.

    Reagan and Obama inherited bad economies. Reagan succeeded beyond all expectations...

    Obama has failed, by any measure...except among koolaid drinking progressives. Of course, by increasing government welfare programs to unheard of levels, Obama has succeeded ---in making the US economy permanently stagnant,  just like European welfare states...

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Wingnuts and their

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    What has he been spending money on?



    They dishonestly count the hit to revenue from two exploded but previously huge bubbles as "Obama spending"

     

     

     



    Really?  That's pretty weak.  Revenue? You mean taxes. Revenue is what companies get in exchange for their prodtots and services. Government does not have revenue.

    Obama year borrowing over a trillion a year.  That has nothing to dowith anything other than his desire to spend it.  If we can't raise it, don't spend it.  Simple.

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Wingnuts and their

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    Cherry picking numbers again, arent we?

    When Ronald Reagan took office America was suffering double-digit inflation, with the CPI (Consumer Price Index) registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years). The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped by anyone , at least it couldn’t be fixed without a calamitous economic collapse (heard that one before too). However, by the end of 1983 (Reagan’s third full year as President) , inflation rates had fallen to 3.22% which is only slightly higher that the inflation rate at the end of 2011 (Obama’s third full year as President) which stood at 3.15%. However, Obama was not handed the same hand when it comes to inflation. In fact in the two years leading up to Obama’s first term, the inflation rates were 2.85% in 2007 and 3.85% in 2008. Again, Ronald Reagan was handed a much worse hand than was Barrack Obama.

    Not to mention that all of the above was accompanied by double digit interest rates in the early 80s, with the rate peaking at 14.14% in 1981. The poverty rate started increasing in 1978, eventually climbing by an astounding 33%, from 11.4% to 15.2%, but by the end of his presidency Reagan had managed to stop the upward trend and lowered the poverty level back to 14%.

    Reagan and Obama inherited bad economies. Reagan succeeded beyond all expectations...

    Obama has failed, by any measure...except among koolaid drinking progressives. Of course, by increasing government welfare programs to unheard of levels, Obama has succeeded ---in making the US economy permanently stagnant,  just like European welfare states...



    You're tripping over your own argument - double digit interest rates are what led the Reagan recovery.  Go back and look at the timeline - Reagan cut taxes in half in 1981.  Did that help the economy?  Unemployment was at 7.4% the day he cut taxes - it grew as high as 10.8% 14 months later.  He raised taxes in October, 1982, with unemployment at 10.4%.  Taxes went down then up before the economy began to improve.

    The recovery had nothing to do with taxes - it was all driven by cuts to the federal funds rate.  The fact that Reagan had a rate nearly 20% was his saving grace - he had tools to help create a recovery.  What was the federal funds rate when Obama took office?  0.15%.

    You think we would engaged in Quantitative Easing if we had interest rates to cut?  No interest rates, a Republican party suddenly fiercely concerned about debts and deficits, a Senate minority that filibusters job bills for recreation - Obama was not dealt a better hand than Reagan.  

     

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Wingnuts and their

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    Cherry picking numbers again, arent we?

    When Ronald Reagan took office America was suffering double-digit inflation, with the CPI (Consumer Price Index) registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years). The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped by anyone , at least it couldn’t be fixed without a calamitous economic collapse (heard that one before too). However, by the end of 1983 (Reagan’s third full year as President) , inflation rates had fallen to 3.22% which is only slightly higher that the inflation rate at the end of 2011 (Obama’s third full year as President) which stood at 3.15%. However, Obama was not handed the same hand when it comes to inflation. In fact in the two years leading up to Obama’s first term, the inflation rates were 2.85% in 2007 and 3.85% in 2008. Again, Ronald Reagan was handed a much worse hand than was Barrack Obama.

    Not to mention that all of the above was accompanied by double digit interest rates in the early 80s, with the rate peaking at 14.14% in 1981. The poverty rate started increasing in 1978, eventually climbing by an astounding 33%, from 11.4% to 15.2%, but by the end of his presidency Reagan had managed to stop the upward trend and lowered the poverty level back to 14%.

    Reagan and Obama inherited bad economies. Reagan succeeded beyond all expectations...

    Obama has failed, by any measure...except among koolaid drinking progressives. Of course, by increasing government welfare programs to unheard of levels, Obama has succeeded ---in making the US economy permanently stagnant,  just like European welfare states...

     



    You're tripping over your own argument - double digit interest rates are what led the Reagan recovery.  Go back and look at the timeline - Reagan cut taxes in half in 1981.  Did that help the economy?  Unemployment was at 7.4% the day he cut taxes - it grew as high as 10.8% 14 months later.  He raised taxes in October, 1982, with unemployment at 10.4%.  Taxes went down then up before the economy began to improve.

     

    The recovery had nothing to do with taxes - it was all driven by cuts to the federal funds rate.  The fact that Reagan had a rate nearly 20% was his saving grace - he had tools to help create a recovery.  What was the federal funds rate when Obama took office?  0.15%.

    You think we would engaged in Quantitative Easing if we had interest rates to cut?  No interest rates, a Republican party suddenly fiercely concerned about debts and deficits, a Senate minority that filibusters job bills for recreation - Obama was not dealt a better hand than Reagan.  

     

     

     




     

     

     

    Seriously....CLC needs to share his stash of LSD.




    Only the left can see the logic in blaming history, in some cases going back over 30 years,  for the poor performance of Obama.

     

    BTW:  Bush perfromed poorly as well.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Wingnuts and their

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    Cherry picking numbers again, arent we?

    When Ronald Reagan took office America was suffering double-digit inflation, with the CPI (Consumer Price Index) registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years). The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped by anyone , at least it couldn’t be fixed without a calamitous economic collapse (heard that one before too). However, by the end of 1983 (Reagan’s third full year as President) , inflation rates had fallen to 3.22% which is only slightly higher that the inflation rate at the end of 2011 (Obama’s third full year as President) which stood at 3.15%. However, Obama was not handed the same hand when it comes to inflation. In fact in the two years leading up to Obama’s first term, the inflation rates were 2.85% in 2007 and 3.85% in 2008. Again, Ronald Reagan was handed a much worse hand than was Barrack Obama.

    Not to mention that all of the above was accompanied by double digit interest rates in the early 80s, with the rate peaking at 14.14% in 1981. The poverty rate started increasing in 1978, eventually climbing by an astounding 33%, from 11.4% to 15.2%, but by the end of his presidency Reagan had managed to stop the upward trend and lowered the poverty level back to 14%.

    Reagan and Obama inherited bad economies. Reagan succeeded beyond all expectations...

    Obama has failed, by any measure...except among koolaid drinking progressives. Of course, by increasing government welfare programs to unheard of levels, Obama has succeeded ---in making the US economy permanently stagnant,  just like European welfare states...

     



    You're tripping over your own argument - double digit interest rates are what led the Reagan recovery.  Go back and look at the timeline - Reagan cut taxes in half in 1981.  Did that help the economy?  Unemployment was at 7.4% the day he cut taxes - it grew as high as 10.8% 14 months later.  He raised taxes in October, 1982, with unemployment at 10.4%.  Taxes went down then up before the economy began to improve.

     

    The recovery had nothing to do with taxes - it was all driven by cuts to the federal funds rate.  The fact that Reagan had a rate nearly 20% was his saving grace - he had tools to help create a recovery.  What was the federal funds rate when Obama took office?  0.15%.

    You think we would engaged in Quantitative Easing if we had interest rates to cut?  No interest rates, a Republican party suddenly fiercely concerned about debts and deficits, a Senate minority that filibusters job bills for recreation - Obama was not dealt a better hand than Reagan.  

     

     

     




     

     

     

    Seriously....CLC needs to share his stash of LSD.

     




    Only the left can see the logic in blaming history, in some cases going back over 30 years,  for the poor performance of Obama.

     

     

    BTW:  Bush perfromed poorly as well.




    OK, we'll add History to Science and Math as the subjects you want no part of.  

     

Share