Democrats and republican presidents and deficits

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
Why do republicans continue to believe that trickle down economics and republican economic policies are compatible with reducing the deficit?

Reagan took the deficit from 70 billion to 175 billion.
Bush 41 took it to 300 billion.
Clinton got it to zero.
Bush 43 took it from 0 to 1.2 trillion.
Obama halved it to 600 billion.
Trump’s got it back to a trillion. ( in less that 3 years)


Even if you don't mind the ethical and moral horror show that is the Trump administration his economic policies are a failure so why exactly do you continue to believe differently?

 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Why do republicans continue to believe that trickle down economics and republican economic policies are compatible with reducing the deficit?

Reagan took the deficit from 70 billion to 175 billion.
Bush 41 took it to 300 billion.
Clinton got it to zero.
Bush 43 took it from 0 to 1.2 trillion.
Obama halved it to 600 billion.
Trump’s got it back to a trillion. ( in less that 3 years)


Even if you don't mind the ethical and moral horror show that is the Trump administration his economic policies are a failure so why exactly do you continue to believe differently?

I presume from this that you agree deficits are a problem.

What funding would you cut to remove the deficits?
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
I presume from this that you agree deficits are a problem.

What funding would you cut to remove the deficits?

Let's start with the $16 billion in farm subsidies that Trump created out of whole cloth to make up for a problem he created.
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
Great! I'm with you. That's 1.6% of the deficit you claim exists. What else?

Do you not believe deficit numbers Trump has created or is that another one of your deep state Seth rich conspiracies spirit cooked up by Hillary and Obama?

Why don't you look at the tax cuts Trump has given business's and the rich or pretty much any of his other idiotic policies and ideas
 
Last edited:

GregV814

Well-Known Member
Excuse me Mr. Spastic, can we cut aide to illegal aliens such as healthcare, apartments, food stamps for unemployables, transgender mutilations for mentally ill humans, whales???
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
Excuse me Mr. Spastic, can we cut aide to illegal aliens such as healthcare, apartments, food stamps for unemployables, transgender mutilations for mentally ill humans, whales???
"A 2007 review of the academic literature by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that "over the past two decades, most efforts to estimate the fiscal impact of immigration in the United States have concluded that, in aggregate and over the long term, tax revenues of all types generated by immigrants—both legal and unauthorized—exceed the cost of the services they use." While the overall fiscal impact on the US is beneficial, unauthorized immigrants have an adverse impact on the budgets of state and local governments. "
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Do you not believe deficit numbers Trump has created?
I do. You came up with 1.6% of the deficits you are reporting, so what else would you cut to limit those deficits.

Why don't you look the tax cuts Trump has given
Well, Trump neither created the deficits nor has given any tax cuts. Those things all originate in Congress. Assuming you agree we have a balanced government where the legislative, executive, and judicial branches all play relatively equally vital roles, then you have to give Congress (both houses) the same level of responsibility you give Trump for all of those things (taxes and spending).

And, I consider tax rates (a) far too high already and (b) improper in that there are different rates depending on one's wages and income. And, I like to look at balanced approaches (spending and revenue together). I also feel that a huge percentage of government spending is outside of the government's constitutional authority.

For all of those reasons, I would focus on spending before trying to raise tax rates again. That doesn't even go into the chilling effects increasing taxes would have on the economy! You've already stated that you understand we put higher taxes on things we want to limit (sin tax, you called it), so we obviously agree that raising taxes would tend to limit wealth growth.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
"A 2007 review of the academic literature by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that "over the past two decades, most efforts to estimate the fiscal impact of immigration in the United States have concluded that, in aggregate and over the long term, tax revenues of all types generated by immigrants—both legal and unauthorized—exceed the cost of the services they use." While the overall fiscal impact on the US is beneficial, unauthorized immigrants have an adverse impact on the budgets of state and local governments. "
Remember the movie "Trading Places"? Great movie. There's a scene in that movie where Eddie Murphy's character breaks a vase, and the vase was valued for insurance at more than the purchase price of that vase. One of the old guys says that Eddie Murphy's character "has already made us money."

Same thing here.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Why do republicans continue to believe that trickle down economics and republican economic policies are compatible with reducing the deficit?

Reagan took the deficit from 70 billion to 175 billion.
Bush 41 took it to 300 billion.
Clinton got it to zero.
Bush 43 took it from 0 to 1.2 trillion.
Obama halved it to 600 billion.
Trump’s got it back to a trillion. ( in less that 3 years)


Even if you don't mind the ethical and moral horror show that is the Trump administration his economic policies are a failure so why exactly do you continue to believe differently?

Let's first make it clear that presidents don't create deficits; congress does.

I think your facts are dishonest.

According to this report:


  • Obama left with the highest deficits of $6.785 trillion. And this was with a GOP majority for 6 of his 8 years.
  • Clinton's so-called "surplus" was on the back of the dotcom boom, and it was despite the tax cut republicans passed. And let's not forget that republicans controlled congress during that period of growth
  • I happen to think W's spending was the most egregious. Anyone that supported his spending and massive expansion of government are just GOP lemmings. While much of his spending to expand government agencies to combat terrorism occurred under a GOP-controlled congress, TARP was signed when democrats were in control.
  • Trump's currently at about $1.092 trillion, and is on a oath to outdo Obama.
But this just makes my point in the other thread that, no matter what kind of president that has sat in that White House, there has been deficit spending. You have to look at the congress.
 

transporter

Well-Known Member
Well, Trump neither created the deficits nor has given any tax cuts. Those things all originate in Congress. Assuming you agree we have a balanced government where the legislative, executive, and judicial branches all play relatively equally vital roles, then you have to give Congress (both houses) the same level of responsibility you give Trump for all of those things (taxes and spending).
Wow...that's a pretty stupid assessment of how our govt works. So it is your opinion, as expressed above, that the Congress never, ever discusses any legislative proposal with the executive branch (or judicial as the case may be) during the creation of the legislation? It is also your opinion then, as clearly expressed above, that the President is just a rubber stamp for Congress...whatever they pass he must sign. Is that how you think our system works???

And, I consider tax rates (a) far too high already and (b) improper in that there are different rates depending on one's wages and income. And, I like to look at balanced approaches (spending and revenue together). I also feel that a huge percentage of government spending is outside of the government's constitutional authority.
So you obvious don't look at balanced approaches as your only solution is to cut spending. You don't seem to understand dick about the Constitution based on your comments in the first paragraph.


For all of those reasons, I would focus on spending before trying to raise tax rates again. That doesn't even go into the chilling effects increasing taxes would have on the economy! You've already stated that you understand we put higher taxes on things we want to limit (sin tax, you called it), so we obviously agree that raising taxes would tend to limit wealth growth.
Wow...there is so much wrong with this part. Why is it than none of you people can understand that the only solution to any problem are the ones at the extreme? No, modest tax cuts will not have chilling effect on the economy any more than the tax cuts that Trump signed into law in late 2017 created a massive growth spurt. Your comment was really dumb and is nothing more than a catch phrase meant for the really dumb. "Sin taxes", moron, are utilized to limit consumption, not wealth....god damn that was a dumb comment.
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
I do. You came up with 1.6% of the deficits you are reporting, so what else would you cut to limit those deficits.


Well, Trump neither created the deficits nor has given any tax cuts. Those things all originate in Congress. Assuming you agree we have a balanced government where the legislative, executive, and judicial branches all play relatively equally vital roles, then you have to give Congress (both houses) the same level of responsibility you give Trump for all of those things (taxes and spending).

And, I consider tax rates (a) far too high already and (b) improper in that there are different rates depending on one's wages and income. And, I like to look at balanced approaches (spending and revenue together). I also feel that a huge percentage of government spending is outside of the government's constitutional authority.

For all of those reasons, I would focus on spending before trying to raise tax rates again. That doesn't even go into the chilling effects increasing taxes would have on the economy! You've already stated that you understand we put higher taxes on things we want to limit (sin tax, you called it), so we obviously agree that raising taxes would tend to limit wealth growth.

Good. Glad we agree that Trumps economic policies and those of past republican presidents lead to an increased deficit while the policies of Democratic presidents lead to a reduced deficit.

The question is why you continue to claim you want to reduce the deficit but continue to support people who do the opposite?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Wow...that's a pretty stupid assessment of how our govt works. So it is your opinion, as expressed above, that the Congress never, ever discusses any legislative proposal with the executive branch (or judicial as the case may be) during the creation of the legislation? It is also your opinion then, as clearly expressed above, that the President is just a rubber stamp for Congress...whatever they pass he must sign. Is that how you think our system works???
Nope, not what I said and not what I think.

But, the claim was that Trump was singularly responsible for the deficits. Are you so uninformed as to think that is how our system works?

Wow...there is so much wrong with this part. Why is it than none of you people can understand that the only solution to any problem are the ones at the extreme? No, modest tax cuts will not have chilling effect on the economy any more than the tax cuts that Trump signed into law in late 2017 created a massive growth spurt. Your comment was really dumb and is nothing more than a catch phrase meant for the really dumb. "Sin taxes", moron, are utilized to limit consumption, not wealth....god damn that was a dumb comment.
It really doesn't matter if they are for consumption, as they are simply taxes. However, we use tax rates to control behavior in relation to income as well. For example, we provide cuts in the taxes paid from income taxes IF the money is saved for retirement, or, if it is used to pay interest on mortgage payments.

I wasn't calling all tax incentives (interesting phrase, huh?) "sin taxes", I was comparing what limited understand Sappy has of taxes to something he's already admitted.

Do I think modest tax increases will chill the economy? The chilling impact is directly proportional to the tax increase. However, the increase in revenue to the tax coffers is not. We know that the higher the taxes, the less increase in revenue (sometimes to the actual detriment of revenue.

What we can do is look at government revenue: In FY19, the estimate is $3.44T. For FY18, it was $3.33T, and for FY17 it was $3.32T. So, revenue has RISEN while tax rates were reduced. This was expected by any smart person.

Sadly for the US citizen, outlays increased larger, causing a larger deficit. This is a problem, which is why I would address spending before tax rates. For over 100 years we had no taxes like we have now, so I'm pretty sure we can get back to that if we just stop spending unconstitutionally.

I know you won't acknowledge your mistakes here, but at least you can read them and learn.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Good. Glad we agree that Trumps economic policies and those of past republican presidents lead to an increased deficit while the policies of Democratic presidents lead to a reduced deficit.

The question is why you continue to claim you want to reduce the deficit but continue to support people who do the opposite?
Yet, that's not what I said at all.

Trump's tax cut, since you can't seem to realize it was both Congress' and Trump's, raised revenue. That was expected, and it happened.

Clinton's reduction in deficit was lead by, and should be credited to, Speaker Gingrich. Clinton did absolutely nothing but sign Gingrich's bills to lead on deficit reduction. The best thing Obama did was sequestration (in terms of deficit reduction - not indicating I think it was a good thing overall). He did that because he expected it would never happen, or last when it did.

The question remains, what spending would you cut. You're at almost 2 cents on the dollar needed. Let's talk what else we can cut.
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
Yet, that's not what I said at all.

Trump's tax cut, since you can't seem to realize it was both Congress' and Trump's, raised revenue. That was expected, and it happened.

Clinton's reduction in deficit was lead by, and should be credited to, Speaker Gingrich. Clinton did absolutely nothing but sign Gingrich's bills to lead on deficit reduction. The best thing Obama did was sequestration (in terms of deficit reduction - not indicating I think it was a good thing overall). He did that because he expected it would never happen, or last when it did.

The question remains, what spending would you cut. You're at almost 2 cents on the dollar needed. Let's talk what else we can cut.

So its merely coincidence that Defecits fall under Democratic presidencies and rise under Republican ones?

What happened to your old " the buck stops here" chestnut about the commander and chief being responsible for everything that happened on his watch? Or does that only apply to overseas embassy book purchases ?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
So its merely coincidence that Defecits fall under Democratic presidencies and rise under Republican ones?
Look at who controlled the Houses of Congress at those times, and see what you see.

What happened to your old " the buck stops here" chestnut about the commander and chief being responsible for everything that happened on his watch? Or does that only apply to overseas embassy book purchases ?
Nope, that applies to things under the cognizance of the executive branch. Since spending is Congress' main job (who holds the purse strings?) and the president is merely one of hundreds of players in that game, that's all the more responsibility a president deserves on that front.
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
Look at who controlled the Houses of Congress at those times, and see what you see.



Nope, that applies to things under the cognizance of the executive branch. Since spending is Congress' main job (who holds the purse strings?) and the president is merely one of hundreds of players in that game, that's all the more responsibility a president deserves on that front.

HYPOCRITE
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
If you have a point to make, make it. Calling names (erroneously, by the way) will simply end the conversation. Last chance warning on this topic.

I dont care to converse with you. All the facts are there. You have been proven wrong again. If you feel, the facts are wrong feel free to try to prove that. Otherwise STFU.

Just like I proved that Chick FIL A was donating to anti gay cases and all you could come up with was " is not"

You are pathetic and unteachable
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I dont care to converse with you. All the facts are there. You have been proven wrong again. If you feel, the facts are wrong feel free to try to prove that. Otherwise STFU.

Just like I proved that Chick FIL A was donating to anti gay cases and all you could come up with was " is not"

You are pathetic and unteachable
Did you check to see who had control of Congress?
 
Top