1. #1
    hockey216
    hockey216's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-20-08
    Posts: 4,584
    Betpoints: 174

    Obama Racks up 5 TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT in first 4 years

    National debt rose form 10.6 Trillion to 15.6 Trillion under Obama. Other liberal posters like Emily Haynes try to deny that obama has been spending. Really???? a 5 Trillion dollar deficit in first 4 years??? and that's not a lot of debt?

    5 TRILLION DOLLARS is not a lot of debt for first 4 years?

    our national debt is now 100% of GDP.

    Will the reckless liberal spending ever stop?

    Our generation and our kids generation will be crippled by taxes. We don't want to collapse like Greece. We need to start taking fiscal responsibility seriously.

  2. #2
    Emily_Haines
    Emily_Haines's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 04-14-09
    Posts: 14,656
    Betpoints: 14028

    Would have nearly been that much without the BS wars that Bush started and massive tax cuts for the wealthy. Once Obama starts taxing the rich fat cats like they should be look for that deficit to be cut to zero and some tax refunds getting sent out for the first time in 12 years which incidentally was the last time our country had a great leader.

    Just amazing how prosperous our country is when a Democrat is running things and how quickly it goes to shit when a Republican is in charge.

  3. #3
    DwightShrute
    I don't believe you ... please continue
    DwightShrute's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 01-17-09
    Posts: 90,341
    Betpoints: 3908

    hockey216 doesn't matter what Obama does because there's always the "well Bush did ______ " response. Don't expect any of these Bush haters to criticize King Obama on his record when its easier to blame the other guy. It's a merry-go-round that never stops.

    Like I said a few times before, Obama could spend 20 Trillion, gas could be at $10 a gallon, unemployment at 30% and the credit rating at B and it would still be Bush's fault.

  4. #4
    Shaudius
    Shaudius's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 09-21-10
    Posts: 1,112
    Betpoints: 701

    Quote Originally Posted by hockey216 View Post
    National debt rose form 10.6 Trillion to 15.6 Trillion under Obama. Other liberal posters like Emily Haynes try to deny that obama has been spending. Really???? a 5 Trillion dollar deficit in first 4 years??? and that's not a lot of debt?

    5 TRILLION DOLLARS is not a lot of debt for first 4 years?

    our national debt is now 100% of GDP.

    Will the reckless liberal spending ever stop?

    Our generation and our kids generation will be crippled by taxes. We don't want to collapse like Greece. We need to start taking fiscal responsibility seriously.
    Here's an honest question for you, who do you think proposed the budget(and therefore the debt was accumulated in that year) that was in force in Obama's first year in office? How much do you think it was? Here's another question for you, how much do you think federal spending was in the 8 years Bush was in office? How fast do you think federal spending rose in the period 2000-2008?

  5. #5
    Shaudius
    Shaudius's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 09-21-10
    Posts: 1,112
    Betpoints: 701

    Quote Originally Posted by DwightShrute View Post
    hockey216 doesn't matter what Obama does because there's always the "well Bush did ______ " response. Don't expect any of these Bush haters to criticize King Obama on his record when its easier to blame the other guy. It's a merry-go-round that never stops.

    Like I said a few times before, Obama could spend 20 Trillion, gas could be at $10 a gallon, unemployment at 30% and the credit rating at B and it would still be Bush's fault.
    Well, considering the OP is blaming all debt that accumulated under Obama's presidency on Obama, I think its pretty fair to point out that the first year Obama was in office he didn't control the amount of debt that was being accumulated since that budget had already been passed months before he took office.

  6. #6
    hockey216
    hockey216's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-20-08
    Posts: 4,584
    Betpoints: 174

    So if Obama started taxing the rich, deficit wouldn't have risen by 5 Trillion?

  7. #7
    Shaudius
    Shaudius's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 09-21-10
    Posts: 1,112
    Betpoints: 701

    Quote Originally Posted by hockey216 View Post
    So since Obama started taxing the rich, why has deficit risen by 5 Trillion?

    You blame bush tax cuts for the deficit... yet when you got rid of them, deficit rose at record levels.
    What the heck are you talking about a) Obama has not started taxing the rich, b) the Bush tax cuts have been extended until the end of 2013, so how could the deficit have risen to record levels when they were repealed, which they haven't been.

  8. #8
    hockey216
    hockey216's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-20-08
    Posts: 4,584
    Betpoints: 174

    bush tax cuts... so why didn't that fix the problem?

    Bush tax cuts lead to 55 consecutive months of job creation. Taxes hurt the economy, not help it. Bush tax cuts helped the economy. Yes, the wealthy paid less money, but the MILLIONS of jobs created still lead to the government bringing in more money. The less money they earned from the wealthy was outwieghed by the additional taxes they got through MILLIONS of people's new jobs.

    You cannot blame bush tax cuts for Obama's deficits. If Obama didn't want to stay in iraq/afghanistan, he didn't have to. I'm not arguing that he shouldnt have. I'm just saying its unfair to blame bush for war costs, because Obama conceivably had the choice to circumvent those costs by withdrawing from the war. I'm not saying he should have. I'm just saying that he made the decision to send additional troops to afghanistan.

    You say that things are so prosperous under democrats? You think Clinton had anything to do with the economy in the 90's? He had a republican congress that was cutting taxes. And it was a cyclical change. The technology boom and the huge profits of the internet bubble were the reasons for the prosperity in the 90's. it had NOTHING to do with bill clinton. The only thing Bill Clinton is remembered for is degrading the highest office in our nation with his disgusting personal actions, and then lying about them to the public and committing perjury. Bill Clinton is a DISGRACE!
    Last edited by hockey216; 05-25-12 at 06:41 PM.

  9. #9
    hockey216
    hockey216's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-20-08
    Posts: 4,584
    Betpoints: 174

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaudius View Post
    What the heck are you talking about a) Obama has not started taxing the rich, b) the Bush tax cuts have been extended until the end of 2013, so how could the deficit have risen to record levels when they were repealed, which they haven't been.
    I misspoke. sorry. I was saying that Bush tax cuts are not to blame for Obama's deficits. Clearly, the bank bailouts, auto industry bailouts don't count as debt. It was all George Bush's fault that Obama spent 5 Trillion more than he took in. It was all Bush's fault that Obama decided to take over the auto industry.

  10. #10
    hockey216
    hockey216's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-20-08
    Posts: 4,584
    Betpoints: 174

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaudius View Post
    Here's an honest question for you, who do you think proposed the budget(and therefore the debt was accumulated in that year) that was in force in Obama's first year in office? How much do you think it was? Here's another question for you, how much do you think federal spending was in the 8 years Bush was in office? How fast do you think federal spending rose in the period 2000-2008?
    Spending did rise under Bush. And when he was spending like a drunken liberal, i pounded the hell out of him for it. I will pound the hell out of anyone who spends like a drunken liberal.

    But 5 Trillion in 4 years is unacceptable.

    UNACCEPTABLE!

  11. #11
    DwightShrute
    I don't believe you ... please continue
    DwightShrute's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 01-17-09
    Posts: 90,341
    Betpoints: 3908

    an oldie but goodie


  12. #12
    Shaudius
    Shaudius's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 09-21-10
    Posts: 1,112
    Betpoints: 701

    Quote Originally Posted by hockey216 View Post
    bush tax cuts... so why didn't that fix the problem?
    What?

    Quote Originally Posted by hockey216 View Post
    Bush tax cuts lead to 55 consecutive months of job creation. Taxes hurt the economy, not help it. Bush tax cuts helped the economy. Yes, the wealthy paid less money, but the MILLIONS of jobs created still lead to the government bringing in more money. The less money they earned from the wealthy was outwieghed by the additional taxes they got through MILLIONS of people's new jobs.
    Correlation is not causation. Besides that the growth that occurred between 2001 and 2007 was weaker than any growth that occurred since WWII, http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=575

    Quote Originally Posted by hockey216 View Post

    You cannot blame bush tax cuts for Obama's deficits. If Obama didn't want to stay in iraq/afghanistan, he didn't have to. I'm not arguing that he shouldnt have. I'm just saying its unfair to blame bush for war costs, because Obama conceivably had the choice to circumvent those costs by withdrawing from the war.


    Again, his first year in office was not his deficit it was Bush's. Beyond that, he could have immediately withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan, but that would have been a disaster, you can't just cut and run, you have to ease into a withdraw, which is why the timetable for Iraq was set up and why the time table for Afghanistan is now in place(NATO just agreed to it). Republicans have been pushing for Bush tax cuts extensions, and they were a part of the budget deal, as in Obama compromised to get them extended for everyone.

    Quote Originally Posted by hockey216 View Post
    You say that things are so prosperous under democrats? You think Clinton had anything to do with the economy in the 90's? He had a republican congress that was cutting taxes. And it was a cyclical change. The technology boom and the huge profits of the internet bubble were the reasons for the prosperity in the 90's. it had NOTHING to do with bill clinton.

    You cannot blame bush tax cuts for Obama's deficits. If Obama didn't want to stay in iraq/afghanistan, he didn't have to. I'm not arguing that he shouldnt have. I'm just saying its unfair to blame bush for war costs, because Obama conceivably had the choice to circumvent those costs by withdrawing from the war.
    Your ass just got done saying that Bush(through his tax cuts) was responsible for the economic growth of 2001 to 20067, but you ROLF at Clinton being responsible for the economy of the 90s. Blatant hypocrisy much?

    Beyond that, a Republican congress cutting taxes when he was President? The tax rates were the same in 1993 as they were in 2001.

    So you attribute the Bush era tax cuts as spurring economic growth from 2001 to 2007(the lowest rate of growth during periods of growth in 60 years) and brush off Clinton's growth as from external factors.

    Answer this? What was the deficit when Bush took office, what was it in his last budget? Feel free to edit these figures to give Bush in 2008 the same revenue as Clinton had when he left office or hell lower revenue if you want. Then give Clinton the amount of spending Bush had when he left office and tell me how much the deficit would be.
    Last edited by Shaudius; 05-25-12 at 06:56 PM.
    Points Awarded:

    golfrulz gave Shaudius 1 SBR Point(s) for this post.


  13. #13
    Shaudius
    Shaudius's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 09-21-10
    Posts: 1,112
    Betpoints: 701

    Quote Originally Posted by hockey216 View Post
    Spending did rise under Bush. And when he was spending like a drunken liberal, i pounded the hell out of him for it. I will pound the hell out of anyone who spends like a drunken liberal.

    But 5 Trillion in 4 years is unacceptable.

    UNACCEPTABLE!
    Government spending has grown at the same yearly rate under Obama as it did under Bush. Also, again, Obama has not been President for 4 years of budgets, there was ~1.5 trillion dollars of debt accumulated by the last Bush budget. Additionally, Social Security spending has risen under Obama as the first baby boomers have been taking retirement(both early and now real). So really what you could more accurately say is that the debt has climbed 3.5 trillion over the three years of Obama budget. Tell me what you think the debt rose the last three years of Bush, tell me how much debt you think would accumulate from 2013 to 2016 if the Ryan budget was passed.

  14. #14
    hockey216
    hockey216's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-20-08
    Posts: 4,584
    Betpoints: 174

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaudius View Post
    The tax rates were the same in 1993 as they were in 2001.
    yes in 1993. that was because bush left office. Tell me, was there not a republican congress that was cutting taxes? what were the Clinton proposed tax rates for wealthy from 1994-2000?

    Tell me one thing that Clinton did to help the economy. If you want to argue that the technology boom and internet boom were because of clinton, i will probably disagree, but i will hear you out. What Bill Clinton policy caused the technology boom and internet boom? What did Clinton do to cause the prosperity?

    Are you denying the cyclical change due to the technology and internet bubble? there was a huge boom. Look at the change in GDP.

    What boom was there when bush was in office when tax cuts caused economic growth? Bush also inherited the negative effects of 9/11 and the collapse of the internet bubble. You say correlation is not causation. Yes, you are right. But the only way to prove causation is to do controlled experiments. there is no way to do controlled experiments in the economy because it is impossible to hold all the other variables equal. It's just impossible. Economists have to use economic theory to evaluate the implications of the policies. And economic theory shows that taxes are harmful to the economy, and that cutting taxes is good. Yes the growth rates were low, but it was tough economic times brought about by the collapse of the internet bubble and 9/11. Remember the recession? I still think that adding millions of jobs via the tax cuts was a benefit. 55 consecutive months of job creation is an accomplishment. Taxes are bad for the economy. They lead to dead weight loss (reduction in consumer/producer surplus), and taxes cause markets to underproduce. Even if you cut taxes on the rich, it will still create jobs. Many people who are wealthy are proprietors of small businesses, and such are required to file under the personal income tax. Raising taxes on the rich also raises taxes on many American Small businesses, who employ tens of millions of people. Businesses are reluctant to take risk by adding labor during periods with high taxes. Reducing taxes increases the profitibility for firms to add labor, since they can keep a greater percentage of that unit of labor's profits.

    Yes bush spent. And i held him accountable for it. But i will say that domestic discretionary spending under bush was relatively low. I never sat here and said bush was my favorite guy. I said that Obama is running a 5 trillion dollar deficit in his first term, setting an all time american record. This is unacceptable. Bush's spending was unacceptable too. But seeing as Bush is no longer in office, i can't advocate that he do anything. Obama and Bush, as well as every other politician, democrats and republicans both included, need to be held accountable and stop the spending. Look at what has happened in Greece. Reckless spending is not (NOT! NOT! NOT!) the path to economic prosperity.

    So, what's your proposal Shaud? If Obama gets re-elected, during his next term, would you like to see another 5 trillion dollar deficit? would you like to see a 7 trillion dollar deficit? How much deficit spending are you advocating? what is your position on domestic spending?
    Last edited by hockey216; 05-25-12 at 09:27 PM.

  15. #15
    hockey216
    hockey216's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-20-08
    Posts: 4,584
    Betpoints: 174

    Quote Originally Posted by DwightShrute View Post
    Like I said a few times before, Obama could spend 20 Trillion, gas could be at $10 a gallon, unemployment at 30% and the credit rating at B and it would still be Bush's fault.
    Yes because liberals don't believe in personal responsibility. They don't believe in fiscal responsibility either. Why get off your ass and get a job? That would be too much work. Just sit on your ass at home and collect free welfare and free unemployment checks. It isn't your responsibility to go out and work. You don't have to. The government should reward failure and laziness. We should all just sit at home and be lazy tards and collect free handouts from the governments. It's the government's fault people are lazy, so the government should pay for them, right?

    Hey, Obama! If i sit on my ass because im too lazy to go out and work, will you bail me out too?

  16. #16
    Shaudius
    Shaudius's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 09-21-10
    Posts: 1,112
    Betpoints: 701

    Quote Originally Posted by hockey216 View Post
    yes in 1993. that was because bush left office. Tell me, was there not a republican congress that was cutting taxes? what were the Clinton proposed tax rates for wealthy from 1994-2000?

    Tell me one thing that Clinton did to help the economy. If you want to argue that the technology boom and internet boom were because of clinton, i will probably disagree, but i will hear you out. What Bill Clinton policy caused the technology boom and internet boom? What did Clinton do to cause the prosperity?
    Tell me one thing that Bush did to help the economy, and guess what, I was wrong before the top marginal rates actually ROSE during the 90s, from 31% in 1992 to 39.6% in 1994, then back down to 36% in 1994 and then remained at 36%. Did our economy stagnate in the 90s? But your whole argument is that tax cuts cause growth, right? So why did the increase in 1994 not grind the economy to a halt? Keep in mind that the internet bubble didn't really get going until 1997 or so(the NASDAQ actually doubled from 1999 to 2000 before crashing).

    Quote Originally Posted by hockey216 View Post
    Are you denying the cyclical change due to the technology and internet bubble? there was a huge boom. Look at the change in GDP.
    Are you denying the housing bubble under Bush? Is Clinton's bubble the cause of his economic success but Bush's bubble not the cause of his? How about the war spending bubble(which is now causing even bigger deficits than it did when Bush was in office).

    Quote Originally Posted by hockey216 View Post
    What boom was there when bush was in office when tax cuts caused economic growth? Bush also inherited the negative effects of 9/11 and the collapse of the internet bubble. You say correlation is not causation. Yes, you are right. But the only way to prove causation is to do controlled experiments. there is no way to do controlled experiments in the economy because it is impossible to hold all the other variables equal. It's just impossible. Economists have to use economic theory to evaluate the implications of the policies. And economic theory shows that taxes are harmful to the economy, and that cutting taxes is good. Yes the growth rates were low, but it was tough economic times brought about by the collapse of the internet bubble and 9/11. Remember the recession? I still think that adding millions of jobs via the tax cuts was a benefit. 55 consecutive months of job creation is an accomplishment. Taxes are bad for the economy. They lead to dead weight loss (reduction in consumer/producer surplus), and taxes cause markets to underproduce. Even if you cut taxes on the rich, it will still create jobs. Many people who are wealthy are proprietors of small businesses, and such are required to file under the personal income tax. Raising taxes on the rich also raises taxes on many American Small businesses, who employ tens of millions of people. Businesses are reluctant to take risk by adding labor during periods with high taxes. Reducing taxes increases the profitibility for firms to add labor, since they can keep a greater percentage of that unit of labor's profits.
    Again, Bush's economic growth was the lowest rate of any period of economic growth since WWII which you dismiss by saying it was tough economic times after the internet bubble and 9/11. If the Bush tax cuts were that successful why did the tax cut of 2001 correlate with the economy shedding massive amounts of jobs all the way until 2003(shouldn't they have stemmed this tide before then if they were immediately stimulative?), why did the economy experience substantially more job growth from 2004 to 2005 then it did from 2006 to 2007(before the financial crisis) if the second tax cut was causing sustained job growth and was also the cause of economic stimulus. How long do you think tax cuts need before they sustain growth, either its awhile and the 2001 tax cut worked but the 2003 one didn't, or its a short while and the 2003 one worked but the 2001 didn't. Can't really have it both ways for job growth.

    Lets really call tax cuts what they are though to your line of reasoning, stimulus spending. How is a tax cut any different than an increase in government spending in your tax cuts cause economic growth scenario? Both cause revenue to decrease, increasing the federal deficit(this is demonstrable), both are purported to increase demand, so in what way can you support tax cut stimulus spending but not support government spending increase as a method of stimulus(I am just guessing from your posts you don't support this kind of stimulus).

    Quote Originally Posted by hockey216 View Post
    Yes bush spent. And i held him accountable for it. But i will say that domestic discretionary spending under bush was relatively low. I never sat here and said bush was my favorite guy. I said that Obama is running a 5 trillion dollar deficit in his first term, setting an all time american record. This is unacceptable. Bush's spending was unacceptable too. But seeing as Bush is no longer in office, i can't advocate that he do anything. Obama and Bush, as well as every other politician, democrats and republicans both included, need to be held accountable and stop the spending. Look at what has happened in Greece. Reckless spending is not (NOT! NOT! NOT!) the path to economic prosperity.
    Did you miss the part of my post where I said that Bush's government spending growth figure in 8 years is the same per year as Obama's? Domestic discretionary spending may have been low(even though it actually wasn't), but military discretionary spending was way up, as was entitlement spending(after all he created the largest increase to Medicare in over 30 years). You keep coming back to this 5 trillion figure and continue to completely ignore my point that 1.5 trillion if it was accounted for before Obama even proposed a budget.

    Quote Originally Posted by hockey216 View Post
    So, what's your proposal Shaud? If Obama gets re-elected, during his next term, would you like to see another 5 trillion dollar deficit? would you like to see a 7 trillion dollar deficit? How much deficit spending are you advocating? what is your position on domestic spending?
    Tax cuts would cause large deficits as well. What I would like to see is us not so worried about the debt and deficit when we're still in the midst of a demand side downturn. What I would like to see is the Republicans get serious about fixing the debt and deficit if that's what they really want instead of hanging out boondoggles like federal employee salary and benefits(in total representing 5% of the federal budget, what they propose to cut is something like .005% of the budget but represents real people's salaries, how's that for a tax cut(really a tax increase) to 3 million workers), and not willing to touch and in fact want to increase military spending(something that makes up 25% of the federal budget), proposing solutions to fix Medicare that don't actually cut the amount of money spent except if you believe their rhetoric that privatization cures ills(which has never been demonstrated to be true, see for instance the cost of DoD contracting of military services), and not willing to even consider tax increases, despite the fact that the vast majority, over 65% of the American people believe that in order to balance the budget but spending cuts and increased taxes need to be on the table, guess which one isn't on the table to the Republicans.

    EDIT: Please note that if you cut the entire federal discretionary spending budget we would still not have a balanced budget at our current military and entitlement spending rates and tax revenue rates.
    Last edited by Shaudius; 05-25-12 at 10:42 PM.

  17. #17
    guitarjosh
    guitarjosh's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 12-25-07
    Posts: 5,182

    Would have nearly been that much without the BS wars that Bush started and massive tax cuts for the wealthy.
    Do you ever wonder what our debt would be like if not for the democrats stationing our troops around the globe from the 1940s until the 1960s and giving the 2 largest capital gains tax cuts since WW2?

    Tell me one thing that Bush did to help the economy, and guess what, I was wrong before the top marginal rates actually ROSE during the 90s, from 31% in 1992 to 39.6% in 1994, then back down to 36% in 1994 and then remained at 36%. Did our economy stagnate in the 90s? But your whole argument is that tax cuts cause growth, right? So why did the increase in 1994 not grind the economy to a halt?
    Actually if you look at BLS numbers, during the last 4 quarters under H. W. Bush, our economic growth averaged slightly over 4.3%. Clinton announced he was raising taxes in the spring of 1993, and the quarterly growth rate slowed to an average of about 3.5% for his first 4.5 years. In 1997, Clinton gave us the 2nd largest capital gains tax cut since WW2, 2nd only to Carter's in 1978, and then the economic growth rate increased to over 4%.
    175 pts

    3-QUESTION
    SBR TRIVIA WINNER 11/21/2022


  18. #18
    Shaudius
    Shaudius's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 09-21-10
    Posts: 1,112
    Betpoints: 701

    Quote Originally Posted by guitarjosh View Post
    Do you ever wonder what our debt would be like if not for the democrats stationing our troops around the globe from the 1940s until the 1960s and giving the 2 largest capital gains tax cuts since WW2?
    Eisenhower was a Democrat? Hopefully no one told Mamie.

    Quote Originally Posted by guitarjosh View Post
    Actually if you look at BLS numbers, during the last 4 quarters under H. W. Bush, our economic growth averaged slightly over 4.3%. Clinton announced he was raising taxes in the spring of 1993, and the quarterly growth rate slowed to an average of about 3.5% for his first 4.5 years. In 1997, Clinton gave us the 2nd largest capital gains tax cut since WW2, 2nd only to Carter's in 1978, and then the economic growth rate increased to over 4%.
    So the growth slowed before the taxes even went into effect? Or it slowed starting in 1994? I think you better get with hockey on the Reagonomics here, after all he says that the growth under the second half of the Clinton years was caused by the internet bubble. But who knows, maybe you're both right, after all most of the internet bubble happened in the stock market, that would make sense if capital gains were cut, people rushed to the stock market, especially hip tech companies to take advantage of low capital gains and then boom, internet bubble collapses and all the capital gains tax cuts in the world don't cause growth anymore, if they even did in the first place.

    Its hard to support the notion that they do cause general growth though, after all the stock market is basically all secondary trading, the only place where growth would happen because of capital gains would be from angel investing and IPO influxes of cash, which would explain some of the not sustained growth late in the decade from IPOing internet start-ups, but wouldn't support low capital gains rates causing economic growth generally.
    Last edited by Shaudius; 05-25-12 at 10:53 PM.

  19. #19
    guitarjosh
    guitarjosh's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 12-25-07
    Posts: 5,182

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaudius View Post
    Eisenhower was a Democrat? Hopefully no one told Mamie.



    So the growth slowed before the taxes even went into effect? Or it slowed starting in 1994? I think you better get with hockey on the Reagonomics here, after all he says that the growth under the second half of the Clinton years was caused by the internet bubble. But who knows, maybe you're both right, after all most of the internet bubble happened in the stock market, that would make sense if capital gains were cut, people rushed to the stock market, especially hip tech companies to take advantage of low capital gains and then boom, internet bubble collapses and all the capital gains tax cuts in the world don't cause growth anymore, if they even did in the first place.

    Its hard to support the notion that they do cause general growth though, after all the stock market is basically all secondary trading, the only place where growth would happen because of capital gains would be from angel investing and IPO influxes of cash, which would explain some of the not sustained growth late in the decade from IPOing internet start-ups, but wouldn't support low capital gains rates causing economic growth generally.
    Eisenhower also got us out of Korea a little more than 6 months after taking office. He announced the tax hikes in the Spring of 1993. Not all of the tax increases were income. A lot of companies trade stock, and there is also the bond market.
    175 pts

    3-QUESTION
    SBR TRIVIA WINNER 11/21/2022


  20. #20
    andywend
    andywend's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 05-20-07
    Posts: 4,805
    Betpoints: 227

    While its extremely irritating that liberal democrats INSIST on rewarding the lazy while ramping up their assistance with each additional LITTER they decide to have, thank goodness the amount of money they receive does NOT give them much of a life at all.

    The vast majority of liberal democrats are extremely bitter and their lives are filled with envy, jealousy and hatred and they will remain that way until their last dying breath.

    Unfortunately, if the "one man/one vote" standard is not dealt with properly, these liberal democratic parasites will eventually overwhelm the system and their elected liberal representatives will ATTEMPT to take absolutely everything from all of us.

    Our founding forefathers NEVER had any intention of allowing these democratic leeches to participate in the voting process and our country should have NEVER deviated from that standard.

    While slavery and then Jim Crow was incredibly unfair to blacks, repealing them has led to an extreme upwards surge in violent crime and things are only getting worse every year. AS the U.S. begins to crumble, the producers are going to get cornered from all sides and there won't be anywhere to hide.

    Conservatives need to continue to enjoy life each day and make the proper adjustments when they become necessary as the U.S. has gone past the point of no return. While there are solutions that can possibly fix all of the problems, they can't be implemented unless major changes are made which can't possibly happen with "one man/one vote".

    Electing Romney over Obama won't solve the problem by itself but it will delay the inevitable somewhat.

    Unfortunately, due to decades of liberal democratic fiscal irresponsibility, our country has dug itself a hole that it can't possibly get out of.

    On that somber note, I wish all conservatives a great weekend.

  21. #21
    Balco10
    Balco10's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 09-11-10
    Posts: 5,480
    Betpoints: 204

    Liberals have nothing!!! Obama has no experience and is a bum! He went to a fancy college that was payed in full by is communist friends. Stupid Americans voted for him!!!! He gets elected again and he are done as the American way! Marshall law will be not far behind. No wonder so many as stocking up on guns.

  22. #22
    golfrulz
    golfrulz's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 02-02-10
    Posts: 2,425
    Betpoints: 276



  23. #23
    Tully Mars 63
    Tully Mars 63's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-06-11
    Posts: 2,750

    Quote Originally Posted by guitarjosh View Post
    Eisenhower also got us out of Korea a little more than 6 months after taking office. He announced the tax hikes in the Spring of 1993. Not all of the tax increases were income. A lot of companies trade stock, and there is also the bond market.
    You realize we're still in Korea, right? I know cause I was stationed there for a while.

  24. #24
    Turd Ferguson
    Turd Ferguson's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-26-10
    Posts: 7,260
    Betpoints: 20249

    Quote Originally Posted by DwightShrute View Post
    an oldie but goodie
    Here's another oldie but goodie Dwight...




  25. #25
    DwightShrute
    I don't believe you ... please continue
    DwightShrute's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 01-17-09
    Posts: 90,341
    Betpoints: 3908

    Quote Originally Posted by Turd Ferguson View Post
    Here's another oldie but goodie Dwight...



    Turd, here's the difference between you and me. When Romney wins in November and IF he continues to increase the debt at a record pace, then I will criticize him rather than give him a free pass by bringing up shit Obama did.

  26. #26
    PAULYPOKER
    I slipped Tricky Dick a hit of LSD!
    PAULYPOKER's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 12-06-08
    Posts: 36,588

    What is your point? the winner of the 2012 election will rack up a 10 TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT in next 4 years .......................

  27. #27
    DwightShrute
    I don't believe you ... please continue
    DwightShrute's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 01-17-09
    Posts: 90,341
    Betpoints: 3908

    Quote Originally Posted by PAULYPOKER View Post
    What is your point? the winner of the 2012 election will rack up a 10 TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT in next 4 years .......................
    is that what your crystal balls says?

    Yes if its Obama we all can see but I highly doubt Romney would. Eventually a President must reduce and eliminate the debt. I think Romney can do it. Or at least put a huge dent in it during his first term.

  28. #28
    guitarjosh
    guitarjosh's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 12-25-07
    Posts: 5,182

    Quote Originally Posted by Tully Mars 63 View Post
    You realize we're still in Korea, right? I know cause I was stationed there for a while.
    But there is a cease fire. And Dwight kept us out of Viet Nam.
    175 pts

    3-QUESTION
    SBR TRIVIA WINNER 11/21/2022


  29. #29
    Turd Ferguson
    Turd Ferguson's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-26-10
    Posts: 7,260
    Betpoints: 20249

    Quote Originally Posted by DwightShrute View Post
    Turd, here's the difference between you and me. When Romney wins in November and IF he continues to increase the debt at a record pace, then I will criticize him rather than give him a free pass by bringing up shit Obama did.
    B.S. You're obsessed with Obama, even though he's continuing 30 years of Reaganomics and "free trade".

  30. #30
    Shaudius
    Shaudius's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 09-21-10
    Posts: 1,112
    Betpoints: 701

    Quote Originally Posted by DwightShrute View Post
    is that what your crystal balls says?

    Yes if its Obama we all can see but I highly doubt Romney would. Eventually a President must reduce and eliminate the debt. I think Romney can do it. Or at least put a huge dent in it during his first term.
    Under the plan that Romney is getting behind, the Ryan budget plan, the federal budget would not lower over the period 2012-2016(it would be slightly lower in 2013 and 2014 but go back to the level it is at now by 2016). It claims that it will cut the deficit because the revenue in 2016 will be 1 trillion dollars more than it is.

    Here is an excerpt of how it proposes to do this, "This budget rejects the President’s call to raise taxes. Instead, it broadens the tax base to maintain revenue growth at a level consistent with current tax policy and at a share of the economy consistent with historical norms of 18 to 19 percent in the following decades."

    Please honestly explain to me what broadening the tax base means besides taxing people more at the bottom of the income distribution curve who currently pay little income tax(they do pay payroll taxes though). So what the Republicans in essence are proposing is that in order to balance the budget rather than decrease spending in the short term(remember they don't do that overall in the Ryan budget), they are proposing we tax people who make the least more. How exactly is that conducive to growth in a demand side recession? Wouldn't taxing the people who live paycheck to paycheck and spend all of their money on goods and services in fact stifle the economy even more?

    Look at it this way, I am a single person who makes between 50-100k a year, my taxes will be less under the Ryan budget plan. On the other hand someone who makes 60k and has a family of 4 will see their taxes increase under the Ryan budget plan. I have disposable income and don't spend it all. That family of 4 who makes 60k needs all of their money to eat, provide shelter, etc., they will have less money to infuse into the economy. I fail to see how that will not kill any benefit we would get from supply side tax cuts through decreased demand the tax increases on the lower socioeconomic classes will cause.

    Oh and also, one of the major reasons that the Ryan budget doesn't cut spending over all...it INCREASES MILITARY SPENDING. So, again the Republican solution to our financial problems are three fold:

    1) increase military spending
    2) decrease social service spending
    3) increase taxes on the poor
    4) decrease taxes on the rich

    So tell me again why anyone who isn't a millionaire should vote for someone whose plan is that?
    Last edited by Shaudius; 05-26-12 at 02:52 PM.

  31. #31
    PAULYPOKER
    I slipped Tricky Dick a hit of LSD!
    PAULYPOKER's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 12-06-08
    Posts: 36,588

    Quote Originally Posted by DwightShrute View Post

    is that what your crystal balls says?
    No, this is what an open mind says without blinders who can question authority without having fear of actual truth.........................

  32. #32
    DwightShrute
    I don't believe you ... please continue
    DwightShrute's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 01-17-09
    Posts: 90,341
    Betpoints: 3908

    Quote Originally Posted by PAULYPOKER View Post
    No, this is what an open mind says without blinders who can question authority without having fear of actual truth.........................
    open mind? ok if you say so but open mind has absolutely nothing to do with it.

  33. #33
    PAULYPOKER
    I slipped Tricky Dick a hit of LSD!
    PAULYPOKER's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 12-06-08
    Posts: 36,588

    Quote Originally Posted by DwightShrute View Post

    open mind? ok if you say so but open mind has absolutely nothing to do with it.
    Do you believe in your government?

  34. #34
    DwightShrute
    I don't believe you ... please continue
    DwightShrute's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 01-17-09
    Posts: 90,341
    Betpoints: 3908

    Quote Originally Posted by PAULYPOKER View Post
    Do you believe in your government?
    Pauly I was only referring to what you said
    What is your point? the winner of the 2012 election will rack up a 10 TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT in next 4 years
    Fact is you don't know is all I was saying. You might be right. Who knows. lets move on

  35. #35
    hockey216
    hockey216's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-20-08
    Posts: 4,584
    Betpoints: 174

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaudius View Post
    Tell me one thing that Bush did to help the economy, and guess what, I was wrong before the top marginal rates actually ROSE during the 90s, from 31% in 1992 to 39.6% in 1994, then back down to 36% in 1994 and then remained at 36%. Did our economy stagnate in the 90s? But your whole argument is that tax cuts cause growth, right? So why did the increase in 1994 not grind the economy to a halt? Keep in mind that the internet bubble didn't really get going until 1997 or so(the NASDAQ actually doubled from 1999 to 2000 before crashing).
    i know that taxes went up during clinton. That is why im saying the economy had nothing to do with him. You are proving my point. It was a cyclical change. Economic theory proves that taxes hurt the economy. The times were so rubust that they thrived despite Clinton's policies. Tax increases hurt the economy, not help them. You can't argue that policies harmful to the economy caused economic growth. It makes absolutely no sense. It was a cyclical change. You are proving my point. I'm not saying that anytime taxes are raised the economy will be the great depression. But there will still be a negative economic effect. And let's not forget that Clinton had a republican congress that was CUTTING SPENDING! I am saying that the economy would have been even better in the 90's without the taxes. Economic theory proves that. The fact that the economy did well despite the tax increases proves that it was a cyclical change. You can't argue that tax increases stimulate growth. 40% tax rates do not stimulate investment. That is common sense. If you disagree that taxes hurt the economy, i encourage you to take college level classes on intermediate macroeconomics. Or, just buy some textbooks. If you want to argue that Clinton was responsible for the economic growth in the 90's, and that it wasn't a cyclical change, please provide me with your opinion on what clinton policies stimulated growth and increased GDP that drastically.

    regarding your point on the tax cuts... the market crashed in 2001 after 9/11. Bush tax cuts were the right move. But it still takes time for the economic benefit to be felt. Bush tax cuts were the right policy in 2001... but when you are dealing with a stock market crash, it takes time to rebound. and the market did rebound. Maybe not immediately. but it did. I am not sure how quickly the Fed responded with cutting interest rates. Even with tax cuts you aren't going to expect the Dow to go through the roof in less than 1 year. let's be realistic. The 2001 crisis was not as bad as the 2008 crisis. But it was still a legitimate stock market crash. Bush dealt with it appropriately. But it was tough economic times. Clinton never had to deal with this. He was coincidentally in office when times were great.

    Lets really call tax cuts what they are though to your line of reasoning, stimulus spending. How is a tax cut any different than an increase in government spending in your tax cuts cause economic growth scenario? Both cause revenue to decrease, increasing the federal deficit(this is demonstrable), both are purported to increase demand, so in what way can you support tax cut stimulus spending but not support government spending increase as a method of stimulus(I am just guessing from your posts you don't support this kind of stimulus).

    Tax cuts are better in my opinion for a couple of reasons. 1 is that i feel the government is inefficient. Mostly on all levels. They overpay employees, give fat pensions, etc. I was talking with a guy who works for the post office sorting mail. He said that with his 100% government matched 401k, his pension, healthcare, and all other benefits, his job is valued at around 120,000. Really? 120k to sort mail? He also said there's a TON of waste. The free market forces businesses to be efficient because they have to compete vigorously with each other. If a business is inefficient, another business can undercut their prices, and they'll go out of business. 2. When the government deficit spends, it has to pay interest on its debt. Deficit spending might sound cool today, but let's not forget the government has to pay back MORE than what it initially spent. This is the problem. The government has to take more money out of the economy than it puts back it. If i give you 20 today, and you give me back 22, i didn't stimulate your wallet because you are 2 dollars worse off than you were initially. With tax cuts you don't face this problem. Also, i feel like we are getting into a macroeconomic discussion of Keynesian economic theory. Want to get into a discussion of Keynesian economics? I have studied it in college. This might be a long discussion, if you know what you are talking about. It has been critiqued a lot by modern economists. If you want me to get into why tax cuts are better than spending, we can get into the problems with keynes. but it will be a long discussion.

    Did you miss the part of my post where I said that Bush's government spending growth figure in 8 years is the same per year as Obama's? Domestic discretionary spending may have been low(even though it actually wasn't), but military discretionary spending was way up, as was entitlement spending(after all he created the largest increase to Medicare in over 30 years). You keep coming back to this 5 trillion figure and continue to completely ignore my point that 1.5 trillion if it was accounted for before Obama even proposed a budget.

    I already confessed that i disagreed with Bush's spending. Much of it was military (2 wars), and drugs for medicare. I already admitted that i disagree with bush's spending. However, i made the point that i think raw spending should be analyzed, not just percent increase. For example, let's say the next president has a 0% increase in spending over the prior administration. Will that be a great accomplishment? My opinion says no because that's a 5 trillion dollar deficit every 4 years. I don't think that's an accomplisment because the previous president ran a 5 trillion dollar deficit in 4 years. We need to look at what the president is doing, not percentage growth over the other guy. Just because another guy was bad doesnt mean that you should be bad too.

    Tax cuts would cause large deficits as well.

    Not if you stop the reckless spending! And spending aside, No they dont. Read economics. If you disagree on economic facts, i can't have a conversation with you. Yes, you are right in the sense that the government takes in less money on a "per capita" basis. However, if tax cuts create millions of more jobs (which they do), the additional revenue from the millions of new workers will outweigh the 2% or whatever less money that the government makes off the rich. I'm pretty sure the Bush tax cuts actually led to the government making more money because of the millions of jobs they created. Yes they made less off the rich, but that was outweighed by the millions of new jobs created, which everyone paid taxes on. If tax cuts didn't create jobs, govt would make less money. But tax cuts do create jobs. You have to factor in the additional money the government makes by the millions of new workers who are now paying taxes, who weren't before.

    What I would like to see is us not so worried about the debt and deficit when we're still in the midst of a demand side downturn.

    How much more spending would you like to see? We are at 15.6 Trillion right now, which is over 100% of GDP. Would you like to see 20 Trillion debt? 25 Trillion? 30 Trillion? Do you believe that a debt crisis from spending can leave us ending up like greece? If the government just prints the money to pay off the debt, there would be massive inflation. Look at Germany in pre-WW2.


    EDIT: Please note that if you cut the entire federal discretionary spending budget we would still not have a balanced budget at our current military and entitlement spending rates and tax revenue rates.

    i am aware. Sadly, some brave soul is going to have to touch entitlements. Whoever you cut entitlements from is going to be pissed. Maybe they should raise the age to get SS by 3 years. And make some massive cuts to drugs to medicare. They need to do something. Entitlement programs make up half the budget and they are unsustainable. It's going to suck for the people who paid it their whole life and dont get it, though.
    Last edited by hockey216; 05-26-12 at 06:53 PM.

12 Last
Top