Total Posts:56|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Fiscal Cliff Nonsense

Ultra
Posts: 47
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 8:01:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is getting ridiculous. This idea of a "fiscal cliff" - a horrible doomsday scenario where taxes go up to 1000% and small businesses fire workers and the military gets raped. Honestly? What was so horrible about the Clinton era tax rates? What is so horrible about modest overseas reductions? I swear, the entire narrative in this country has moved so far to the right, it scares the hell outta me. Please, stop listening to the big defense contractors and the legislators they own. And stop listening to the Republicans (and Democrats) who say that a 5% tax increase on the rich will crash the economy. In my opinion, we need this. Yes, it might hurt a little at first, but it is the only way we're responsibly getting this deficit under control.

You know who came up with the name "fiscal cliff?" Ben Bernanke.
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 8:34:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Since Wilson, this country has actually been on a steady move to the left, now granted there were U-turns, especially under Reagan and Bush, but one, the country is so much more to the left than it was even 10 years ago, and ever since Obama, it's just going to keep going.

High tax rates on a struggling economy never work because they take money out of circulation, money that can't be spent. Granted, yes, this will be put toward government expenditures, but the Keynesian paradox immediately comes into play. The most efficient way to reduce the deficit while at the same time not hurting the economy is to cut spending - drastically.

The same thing goes for higher taxes on the rich. You are taking enormous sums of money that would have gone to support businesses, and thus economic growth and job creation, but with those new taxes, you're putting a double whammy on the economy.

The fiscal cliff is coming. We can't ignore it. If spending is not cut soon, we are going to be facing massive debt problems - worse than we have ever felt; and unlike Greece and Spain, there will be no saving us; we will be too deep in the hole.
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 9:09:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Fiscal cliff: a towering accumulation of $500 billion in budget cuts and expiring tax breaks that would abruptly reduce government borrowing but could trigger a new recession. Unemployment would also end up as high as 9.2%.

As you can see, it provides everyone on Capitol Hill with some incentives to work on it. Democrats want to have the Bush era tax cut expired on those who earn over $200,000 for the individual and $250,000 for the family. Republicans say no way. Republicans want to cut entitlement spending without raising tax rate (no cut for the rich), but they do open to new tax revenues according to House Speaker John Boehner. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has admonished Congressional Republicans to not "mess with Social Security." In fact, in gridlocked Washington, "Go over the cliff" is the preference of some in both parties. The impact would be significant in short term but not catastrophic as long as those policymakers could reach an agreement within a few weeks.
Yes, it is real.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 9:14:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 8:01:58 PM, Ultra wrote:
This is getting ridiculous. This idea of a "fiscal cliff" - a horrible doomsday scenario where taxes go up to 1000% and small businesses fire workers and the military gets raped. Honestly? What was so horrible about the Clinton era tax rates? What is so horrible about modest overseas reductions? I swear, the entire narrative in this country has moved so far to the right, it scares the hell outta me. Please, stop listening to the big defense contractors and the legislators they own. And stop listening to the Republicans (and Democrats) who say that a 5% tax increase on the rich will crash the economy. In my opinion, we need this. Yes, it might hurt a little at first, but it is the only way we're responsibly getting this deficit under control.

You know who came up with the name "fiscal cliff?" Ben Bernanke.

Not really. Paul Krugman's pretty leftist and talks about the fiscal cliff a lot.

The difference is that in the Clinton Era we were not in a recession era but in an economic boom. During an economic boom, one is supposed to raise taxes, not lower them.

I, however don't believe the keynesian multiplier is currently that great and the US should work on reducing its deficits.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
keepinitreal
Posts: 58
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 9:20:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
let it happen. Let's have both taxes raised on all income brackets and cut government spending across the board. Too easy
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 9:30:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 9:14:45 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/12/2012 8:01:58 PM, Ultra wrote:
This is getting ridiculous. This idea of a "fiscal cliff" - a horrible doomsday scenario where taxes go up to 1000% and small businesses fire workers and the military gets raped. Honestly? What was so horrible about the Clinton era tax rates? What is so horrible about modest overseas reductions? I swear, the entire narrative in this country has moved so far to the right, it scares the hell outta me. Please, stop listening to the big defense contractors and the legislators they own. And stop listening to the Republicans (and Democrats) who say that a 5% tax increase on the rich will crash the economy. In my opinion, we need this. Yes, it might hurt a little at first, but it is the only way we're responsibly getting this deficit under control.

You know who came up with the name "fiscal cliff?" Ben Bernanke.

Not really. Paul Krugman's pretty leftist and talks about the fiscal cliff a lot.

The difference is that in the Clinton Era we were not in a recession era but in an economic boom. During an economic boom, one is supposed to raise taxes, not lower them.

I, however don't believe the keynesian multiplier is currently that great and the US should work on reducing its deficits.

President Bill Clinton raised taxes early during his presidency when the economy was in a very bad shape (thanks to President George Bush). President Clinton raised taxes to pay off national debt and thereby easing the fear of investors. Democrats lost 1994 mid-term elections partially due to his tax policy. George W. Bush felt that government had too much money, so he signed a tax-cut...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 9:34:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 8:34:54 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
Since Wilson, this country has actually been on a steady move to the left, now granted there were U-turns, especially under Reagan and Bush, but one, the country is so much more to the left than it was even 10 years ago, and ever since Obama, it's just going to keep going.

Liberal Presidents: FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter, Clinton, Obama
Conservative Presidents: Hoover, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush jr.
Moderate Presidents: Eisenhower

That's a fairly equal number. So, how do you justify the claim that we have been in a "steady move to the left"?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 9:36:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 9:30:48 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 11/12/2012 9:14:45 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/12/2012 8:01:58 PM, Ultra wrote:
This is getting ridiculous. This idea of a "fiscal cliff" - a horrible doomsday scenario where taxes go up to 1000% and small businesses fire workers and the military gets raped. Honestly? What was so horrible about the Clinton era tax rates? What is so horrible about modest overseas reductions? I swear, the entire narrative in this country has moved so far to the right, it scares the hell outta me. Please, stop listening to the big defense contractors and the legislators they own. And stop listening to the Republicans (and Democrats) who say that a 5% tax increase on the rich will crash the economy. In my opinion, we need this. Yes, it might hurt a little at first, but it is the only way we're responsibly getting this deficit under control.

You know who came up with the name "fiscal cliff?" Ben Bernanke.

Not really. Paul Krugman's pretty leftist and talks about the fiscal cliff a lot.

The difference is that in the Clinton Era we were not in a recession era but in an economic boom. During an economic boom, one is supposed to raise taxes, not lower them.

I, however don't believe the keynesian multiplier is currently that great and the US should work on reducing its deficits.

President Bill Clinton raised taxes early during his presidency when the economy was in a very bad shape (thanks to President George Bush). President Clinton raised taxes to pay off national debt and thereby easing the fear of investors. Democrats lost 1994 mid-term elections partially due to his tax policy. George W. Bush felt that government had too much money, so he signed a tax-cut...

deficit spending still occurred under Bill Clinton during his first few years:

http://upload.wikimedia.org...

Unemployment rate is also higher then it is now.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 9:38:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 9:34:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/12/2012 8:34:54 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
Since Wilson, this country has actually been on a steady move to the left, now granted there were U-turns, especially under Reagan and Bush, but one, the country is so much more to the left than it was even 10 years ago, and ever since Obama, it's just going to keep going.

Liberal Presidents: FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter, Clinton, Obama
Conservative Presidents: Hoover, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush jr.
Moderate Presidents: Eisenhower

That's a fairly equal number. So, how do you justify the claim that we have been in a "steady move to the left"?

A right winger now isn't what it was many years ago. Remember, Barack Obama supporters were accusing Mitt Romney of having an economic and social policy that resembled the 50s to make it seem as if he was a radical, demonstrating that the 50s were more right-wing then it is now.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 9:38:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 9:34:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/12/2012 8:34:54 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
Since Wilson, this country has actually been on a steady move to the left, now granted there were U-turns, especially under Reagan and Bush, but one, the country is so much more to the left than it was even 10 years ago, and ever since Obama, it's just going to keep going.

Liberal Presidents: FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter, Clinton, Obama
Conservative Presidents: Hoover, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush jr.
Moderate Presidents: Eisenhower

That's a fairly equal number. So, how do you justify the claim that we have been in a "steady move to the left"?

How about looking at what's actually happened instead of what you claim to be the ideologies of these men. Imperialism, social security, medicare/caid, great society, greater regulations, decline in civil liberties, ect. Of course it hasnt been a steady move, but as a general trend the country has gotten further and further away from economic freedom
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 9:39:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 9:38:57 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/12/2012 9:34:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/12/2012 8:34:54 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
Since Wilson, this country has actually been on a steady move to the left, now granted there were U-turns, especially under Reagan and Bush, but one, the country is so much more to the left than it was even 10 years ago, and ever since Obama, it's just going to keep going.

Liberal Presidents: FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter, Clinton, Obama
Conservative Presidents: Hoover, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush jr.
Moderate Presidents: Eisenhower

That's a fairly equal number. So, how do you justify the claim that we have been in a "steady move to the left"?

How about looking at what's actually happened instead of what you claim to be the ideologies of these men. Imperialism, social security, medicare/caid, great society, greater regulations, decline in civil liberties, ect. Of course it hasnt been a steady move, but as a general trend the country has gotten further and further away from economic freedom

Forgot te federal reserve and Obamacare
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 9:40:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 9:30:48 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 11/12/2012 9:14:45 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/12/2012 8:01:58 PM, Ultra wrote:
This is getting ridiculous. This idea of a "fiscal cliff" - a horrible doomsday scenario where taxes go up to 1000% and small businesses fire workers and the military gets raped. Honestly? What was so horrible about the Clinton era tax rates? What is so horrible about modest overseas reductions? I swear, the entire narrative in this country has moved so far to the right, it scares the hell outta me. Please, stop listening to the big defense contractors and the legislators they own. And stop listening to the Republicans (and Democrats) who say that a 5% tax increase on the rich will crash the economy. In my opinion, we need this. Yes, it might hurt a little at first, but it is the only way we're responsibly getting this deficit under control.

You know who came up with the name "fiscal cliff?" Ben Bernanke.

Not really. Paul Krugman's pretty leftist and talks about the fiscal cliff a lot.

The difference is that in the Clinton Era we were not in a recession era but in an economic boom. During an economic boom, one is supposed to raise taxes, not lower them.

I, however don't believe the keynesian multiplier is currently that great and the US should work on reducing its deficits.

President Bill Clinton raised taxes early during his presidency when the economy was in a very bad shape (thanks to President George Bush). President Clinton raised taxes to pay off national debt and thereby easing the fear of investors. Democrats lost 1994 mid-term elections partially due to his tax policy. George W. Bush felt that government had too much money, so he signed a tax-cut...

Clinton did not pay off the debt. The federal debt increased every single year. He 'balanced' the budget because we borrowed that money from ourselves.

Also, keep in mind two things.

1 - Clinton got the boom from the dot-com bubble.

2 - Go look at the debt and deficits, by year, according to who controls congress. You can't just look at the POTUS.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 9:51:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 9:38:57 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/12/2012 9:34:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/12/2012 8:34:54 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
Since Wilson, this country has actually been on a steady move to the left, now granted there were U-turns, especially under Reagan and Bush, but one, the country is so much more to the left than it was even 10 years ago, and ever since Obama, it's just going to keep going.

Liberal Presidents: FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter, Clinton, Obama
Conservative Presidents: Hoover, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush jr.
Moderate Presidents: Eisenhower

That's a fairly equal number. So, how do you justify the claim that we have been in a "steady move to the left"?

How about looking at what's actually happened instead of what you claim to be the ideologies of these men. Imperialism, social security, medicare/caid, great society, greater regulations, decline in civil liberties, ect. Of course it hasnt been a steady move, but as a general trend the country has gotten further and further away from economic freedom

We can say that the trend is toward social liberty and economic regulation. That's because those are the directions that people by and large agree with.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 9:51:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 9:34:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/12/2012 8:34:54 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
Since Wilson, this country has actually been on a steady move to the left, now granted there were U-turns, especially under Reagan and Bush, but one, the country is so much more to the left than it was even 10 years ago, and ever since Obama, it's just going to keep going.

Liberal Presidents: FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter, Clinton, Obama
Conservative Presidents: Hoover, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush jr.
Moderate Presidents: Eisenhower

That's a fairly equal number. So, how do you justify the claim that we have been in a "steady move to the left"?

Some Presidents have greater influences than others. President Reagan vs. President Carter for example. Contemporary conservative policy (or GOP ideology) originates from President Reagan, who really hates government, once famously said "Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem." Contemporary liberal policy originates from FDR, advanced by JFK and LBJ (social security and among other entitlements), and finally polished by Bill Clinton (I would say President Bill Clinton leans towards left, but he is at ideological centre).
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 9:59:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 9:34:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/12/2012 8:34:54 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
Since Wilson, this country has actually been on a steady move to the left, now granted there were U-turns, especially under Reagan and Bush, but one, the country is so much more to the left than it was even 10 years ago, and ever since Obama, it's just going to keep going.

Liberal Presidents: FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter, Clinton, Obama
Conservative Presidents: Hoover, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush jr.
Moderate Presidents: Eisenhower

That's a fairly equal number. So, how do you justify the claim that we have been in a "steady move to the left"?

The definition of "right" is nothing of what it used to be now. Austrian/Classical theory used to be the basis of right-wing economics, but it's now a highly watered down and inherently fallicious at times theory.

Since Wilson, we've had the Federal Reserve, Income Tax, the "New Deal", LBJ's welfare policies, Carter's explosive expansion of government, Reagan's/Bush's explosive expansion of the military, and large tax increases, loads of bailouts, increasing Keynesianism, infinitely new regulations...

It's nothing like it was in 1914.
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 10:01:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 9:51:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/12/2012 9:38:57 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/12/2012 9:34:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/12/2012 8:34:54 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
Since Wilson, this country has actually been on a steady move to the left, now granted there were U-turns, especially under Reagan and Bush, but one, the country is so much more to the left than it was even 10 years ago, and ever since Obama, it's just going to keep going.

Liberal Presidents: FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter, Clinton, Obama
Conservative Presidents: Hoover, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush jr.
Moderate Presidents: Eisenhower

That's a fairly equal number. So, how do you justify the claim that we have been in a "steady move to the left"?

How about looking at what's actually happened instead of what you claim to be the ideologies of these men. Imperialism, social security, medicare/caid, great society, greater regulations, decline in civil liberties, ect. Of course it hasnt been a steady move, but as a general trend the country has gotten further and further away from economic freedom

We can say that the trend is toward social liberty and economic regulation. That's because those are the directions that people by and large agree with.

Ok, I consider this a concession...
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 10:04:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 9:40:30 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 11/12/2012 9:30:48 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 11/12/2012 9:14:45 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/12/2012 8:01:58 PM, Ultra wrote:
This is getting ridiculous. This idea of a "fiscal cliff" - a horrible doomsday scenario where taxes go up to 1000% and small businesses fire workers and the military gets raped. Honestly? What was so horrible about the Clinton era tax rates? What is so horrible about modest overseas reductions? I swear, the entire narrative in this country has moved so far to the right, it scares the hell outta me. Please, stop listening to the big defense contractors and the legislators they own. And stop listening to the Republicans (and Democrats) who say that a 5% tax increase on the rich will crash the economy. In my opinion, we need this. Yes, it might hurt a little at first, but it is the only way we're responsibly getting this deficit under control.

You know who came up with the name "fiscal cliff?" Ben Bernanke.

Not really. Paul Krugman's pretty leftist and talks about the fiscal cliff a lot.

The difference is that in the Clinton Era we were not in a recession era but in an economic boom. During an economic boom, one is supposed to raise taxes, not lower them.

I, however don't believe the keynesian multiplier is currently that great and the US should work on reducing its deficits.

President Bill Clinton raised taxes early during his presidency when the economy was in a very bad shape (thanks to President George Bush). President Clinton raised taxes to pay off national debt and thereby easing the fear of investors. Democrats lost 1994 mid-term elections partially due to his tax policy. George W. Bush felt that government had too much money, so he signed a tax-cut...

Clinton did not pay off the debt. The federal debt increased every single year. He 'balanced' the budget because we borrowed that money from ourselves.

Also, keep in mind two things.

1 - Clinton got the boom from the dot-com bubble.

2 - Go look at the debt and deficits, by year, according to who controls congress. You can't just look at the POTUS.

Perhaps I should add a qualifier "Not completely." to make my points more clear. President Clinton was trying to balance the budge and pay off national debt. (Unlike President Reagan and President Bush(s))

1 - Clinton got the boom from the dot-come bubble
Without government policy, it is hard to image there would be a dot-come bubble. Government policies such as Tax policy, education policy, and among others, are essential to the economic boom.

2 - Go look at the debt and deficits, by year, according to who controls congress. You can't just look at the POTUS.
Here is the number:
Prior to Ronald Reagan: 1.0 Trillion
Ronald Reagan added 1.9 Trillion (8 years)
George H.W. Bush added 1.5 Trillion (4 years)
Bill Clinton added 1.4 Trillion (8 years)
George W. Bush added 6.1 Trillion (8 years)
President Obama (so far) added 2.4 Trillion (4 years).

So...George W. Bush is our winner.
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 10:06:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 10:04:03 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 11/12/2012 9:40:30 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 11/12/2012 9:30:48 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 11/12/2012 9:14:45 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/12/2012 8:01:58 PM, Ultra wrote:
This is getting ridiculous. This idea of a "fiscal cliff" - a horrible doomsday scenario where taxes go up to 1000% and small businesses fire workers and the military gets raped. Honestly? What was so horrible about the Clinton era tax rates? What is so horrible about modest overseas reductions? I swear, the entire narrative in this country has moved so far to the right, it scares the hell outta me. Please, stop listening to the big defense contractors and the legislators they own. And stop listening to the Republicans (and Democrats) who say that a 5% tax increase on the rich will crash the economy. In my opinion, we need this. Yes, it might hurt a little at first, but it is the only way we're responsibly getting this deficit under control.

You know who came up with the name "fiscal cliff?" Ben Bernanke.

Not really. Paul Krugman's pretty leftist and talks about the fiscal cliff a lot.

The difference is that in the Clinton Era we were not in a recession era but in an economic boom. During an economic boom, one is supposed to raise taxes, not lower them.

I, however don't believe the keynesian multiplier is currently that great and the US should work on reducing its deficits.

President Bill Clinton raised taxes early during his presidency when the economy was in a very bad shape (thanks to President George Bush). President Clinton raised taxes to pay off national debt and thereby easing the fear of investors. Democrats lost 1994 mid-term elections partially due to his tax policy. George W. Bush felt that government had too much money, so he signed a tax-cut...

Clinton did not pay off the debt. The federal debt increased every single year. He 'balanced' the budget because we borrowed that money from ourselves.

Also, keep in mind two things.

1 - Clinton got the boom from the dot-com bubble.

2 - Go look at the debt and deficits, by year, according to who controls congress. You can't just look at the POTUS.

Perhaps I should add a qualifier "Not completely." to make my points more clear. President Clinton was trying to balance the budge and pay off national debt. (Unlike President Reagan and President Bush(s))

1 - Clinton got the boom from the dot-come bubble
Without government policy, it is hard to image there would be a dot-come bubble. Government policies such as Tax policy, education policy, and among others, are essential to the economic boom.

2 - Go look at the debt and deficits, by year, according to who controls congress. You can't just look at the POTUS.
Here is the number:
Prior to Ronald Reagan: 1.0 Trillion
Ronald Reagan added 1.9 Trillion (8 years)
George H.W. Bush added 1.5 Trillion (4 years)
Bill Clinton added 1.4 Trillion (8 years)
George W. Bush added 6.1 Trillion (8 years)
President Obama (so far) added 2.4 Trillion (4 years).

So...George W. Bush is our winner.

How'd you pull that out of the bag? Obama has added about 6 trillion. His rate is twice as quick as Bush's!
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 10:10:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 9:51:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/12/2012 9:38:57 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/12/2012 9:34:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/12/2012 8:34:54 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
Since Wilson, this country has actually been on a steady move to the left, now granted there were U-turns, especially under Reagan and Bush, but one, the country is so much more to the left than it was even 10 years ago, and ever since Obama, it's just going to keep going.

Liberal Presidents: FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter, Clinton, Obama
Conservative Presidents: Hoover, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush jr.
Moderate Presidents: Eisenhower

That's a fairly equal number. So, how do you justify the claim that we have been in a "steady move to the left"?

How about looking at what's actually happened instead of what you claim to be the ideologies of these men. Imperialism, social security, medicare/caid, great society, greater regulations, decline in civil liberties, ect. Of course it hasnt been a steady move, but as a general trend the country has gotten further and further away from economic freedom

We can say that the trend is toward social liberty and economic regulation. That's because those are the directions that people by and large agree with.

that wasn't the original statement. Do you agree that these are leftist policies?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 10:13:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 9:51:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/12/2012 9:38:57 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/12/2012 9:34:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/12/2012 8:34:54 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
Since Wilson, this country has actually been on a steady move to the left, now granted there were U-turns, especially under Reagan and Bush, but one, the country is so much more to the left than it was even 10 years ago, and ever since Obama, it's just going to keep going.

Liberal Presidents: FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter, Clinton, Obama
Conservative Presidents: Hoover, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush jr.
Moderate Presidents: Eisenhower

That's a fairly equal number. So, how do you justify the claim that we have been in a "steady move to the left"?

How about looking at what's actually happened instead of what you claim to be the ideologies of these men. Imperialism, social security, medicare/caid, great society, greater regulations, decline in civil liberties, ect. Of course it hasnt been a steady move, but as a general trend the country has gotten further and further away from economic freedom

We can say that the trend is toward social liberty and economic regulation. That's because those are the directions that people by and large agree with.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the argument at hand. Althoguh I doubt the trend is towards social liberty. More like forced equality as busness owners cannot discrimiante against people for example. That is not liberty in any sense of the word
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 10:21:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 10:04:03 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
2 - Go look at the debt and deficits, by year, according to who controls congress. You can't just look at the POTUS.
Here is the number:
Prior to Ronald Reagan: 1.0 Trillion
Ronald Reagan added 1.9 Trillion (8 years)
George H.W. Bush added 1.5 Trillion (4 years)
Bill Clinton added 1.4 Trillion (8 years)
George W. Bush added 6.1 Trillion (8 years)
President Obama (so far) added 2.4 Trillion (4 years).

So...George W. Bush is our winner.

You didn't read what I wrote... and you are wrong at least with Obama's figure. You can't run 1 trilllion+ deficits for 4 years and only increase debt by 2.4 trillion.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 10:23:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 10:06:08 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:04:03 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 11/12/2012 9:40:30 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 11/12/2012 9:30:48 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 11/12/2012 9:14:45 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/12/2012 8:01:58 PM, Ultra wrote:
This is getting ridiculous. This idea of a "fiscal cliff" - a horrible doomsday scenario where taxes go up to 1000% and small businesses fire workers and the military gets raped. Honestly? What was so horrible about the Clinton era tax rates? What is so horrible about modest overseas reductions? I swear, the entire narrative in this country has moved so far to the right, it scares the hell outta me. Please, stop listening to the big defense contractors and the legislators they own. And stop listening to the Republicans (and Democrats) who say that a 5% tax increase on the rich will crash the economy. In my opinion, we need this. Yes, it might hurt a little at first, but it is the only way we're responsibly getting this deficit under control.

You know who came up with the name "fiscal cliff?" Ben Bernanke.

Not really. Paul Krugman's pretty leftist and talks about the fiscal cliff a lot.

The difference is that in the Clinton Era we were not in a recession era but in an economic boom. During an economic boom, one is supposed to raise taxes, not lower them.

I, however don't believe the keynesian multiplier is currently that great and the US should work on reducing its deficits.

President Bill Clinton raised taxes early during his presidency when the economy was in a very bad shape (thanks to President George Bush). President Clinton raised taxes to pay off national debt and thereby easing the fear of investors. Democrats lost 1994 mid-term elections partially due to his tax policy. George W. Bush felt that government had too much money, so he signed a tax-cut...

Clinton did not pay off the debt. The federal debt increased every single year. He 'balanced' the budget because we borrowed that money from ourselves.

Also, keep in mind two things.

1 - Clinton got the boom from the dot-com bubble.

2 - Go look at the debt and deficits, by year, according to who controls congress. You can't just look at the POTUS.

Perhaps I should add a qualifier "Not completely." to make my points more clear. President Clinton was trying to balance the budge and pay off national debt. (Unlike President Reagan and President Bush(s))

1 - Clinton got the boom from the dot-come bubble
Without government policy, it is hard to image there would be a dot-come bubble. Government policies such as Tax policy, education policy, and among others, are essential to the economic boom.

2 - Go look at the debt and deficits, by year, according to who controls congress. You can't just look at the POTUS.
Here is the number:
Prior to Ronald Reagan: 1.0 Trillion
Ronald Reagan added 1.9 Trillion (8 years)
George H.W. Bush added 1.5 Trillion (4 years)
Bill Clinton added 1.4 Trillion (8 years)
George W. Bush added 6.1 Trillion (8 years)
President Obama (so far) added 2.4 Trillion (4 years).

So...George W. Bush is our winner.

How'd you pull that out of the bag? Obama has added about 6 trillion. His rate is twice as quick as Bush's!

Back to Work: Why we Need Smart Government for a Strong Economy by Bill Clinton (2010)
Yes, there is a 2-year gap, but most debt added by President Obama happened during the first two years of his presidency. After Republicans controlled the House after 2010 mid-term election, hardly any spending bills had been passed.

Another one is http://mediamatters.org...

So...
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 10:27:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 10:23:37 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:06:08 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:04:03 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 11/12/2012 9:40:30 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 11/12/2012 9:30:48 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 11/12/2012 9:14:45 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/12/2012 8:01:58 PM, Ultra wrote:
This is getting ridiculous. This idea of a "fiscal cliff" - a horrible doomsday scenario where taxes go up to 1000% and small businesses fire workers and the military gets raped. Honestly? What was so horrible about the Clinton era tax rates? What is so horrible about modest overseas reductions? I swear, the entire narrative in this country has moved so far to the right, it scares the hell outta me. Please, stop listening to the big defense contractors and the legislators they own. And stop listening to the Republicans (and Democrats) who say that a 5% tax increase on the rich will crash the economy. In my opinion, we need this. Yes, it might hurt a little at first, but it is the only way we're responsibly getting this deficit under control.

You know who came up with the name "fiscal cliff?" Ben Bernanke.

Not really. Paul Krugman's pretty leftist and talks about the fiscal cliff a lot.

The difference is that in the Clinton Era we were not in a recession era but in an economic boom. During an economic boom, one is supposed to raise taxes, not lower them.

I, however don't believe the keynesian multiplier is currently that great and the US should work on reducing its deficits.

President Bill Clinton raised taxes early during his presidency when the economy was in a very bad shape (thanks to President George Bush). President Clinton raised taxes to pay off national debt and thereby easing the fear of investors. Democrats lost 1994 mid-term elections partially due to his tax policy. George W. Bush felt that government had too much money, so he signed a tax-cut...

Clinton did not pay off the debt. The federal debt increased every single year. He 'balanced' the budget because we borrowed that money from ourselves.

Also, keep in mind two things.

1 - Clinton got the boom from the dot-com bubble.

2 - Go look at the debt and deficits, by year, according to who controls congress. You can't just look at the POTUS.

Perhaps I should add a qualifier "Not completely." to make my points more clear. President Clinton was trying to balance the budge and pay off national debt. (Unlike President Reagan and President Bush(s))

1 - Clinton got the boom from the dot-come bubble
Without government policy, it is hard to image there would be a dot-come bubble. Government policies such as Tax policy, education policy, and among others, are essential to the economic boom.

2 - Go look at the debt and deficits, by year, according to who controls congress. You can't just look at the POTUS.
Here is the number:
Prior to Ronald Reagan: 1.0 Trillion
Ronald Reagan added 1.9 Trillion (8 years)
George H.W. Bush added 1.5 Trillion (4 years)
Bill Clinton added 1.4 Trillion (8 years)
George W. Bush added 6.1 Trillion (8 years)
President Obama (so far) added 2.4 Trillion (4 years).

So...George W. Bush is our winner.

How'd you pull that out of the bag? Obama has added about 6 trillion. His rate is twice as quick as Bush's!

Back to Work: Why we Need Smart Government for a Strong Economy by Bill Clinton (2010)
Yes, there is a 2-year gap, but most debt added by President Obama happened during the first two years of his presidency. After Republicans controlled the House after 2010 mid-term election, hardly any spending bills had been passed.

Another one is http://mediamatters.org...

So...

Lol, thanks for proving my point.
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 10:32:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 10:21:22 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:04:03 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
2 - Go look at the debt and deficits, by year, according to who controls congress. You can't just look at the POTUS.
Here is the number:
Prior to Ronald Reagan: 1.0 Trillion
Ronald Reagan added 1.9 Trillion (8 years)
George H.W. Bush added 1.5 Trillion (4 years)
Bill Clinton added 1.4 Trillion (8 years)
George W. Bush added 6.1 Trillion (8 years)
President Obama (so far) added 2.4 Trillion (4 years).

So...George W. Bush is our winner.

You didn't read what I wrote... and you are wrong at least with Obama's figure. You can't run 1 trilllion+ deficits for 4 years and only increase debt by 2.4 trillion.

I get the number from
Back to Work: Why we Need Smart Government for a Strong Economy by Bill Clinton (2010)
Yes, there is a 2-year gap, but most debt added by President Obama happened during the first two years of his presidency. After Republicans controlled the House after 2010 mid-term election, hardly any spending bills had been passed.

President Bill Clinton gets the figure from: The New York Times, and they get the figure from Department of Treasury. I have no way to know if Department of Treasury gets their number from POTUS.

But, even if it was the case, what is wrong with it? So none of the governmental information is reliable? Or are there any reasons to believe that the numbers have been manipulated? Or there are some other reasons? There is no reason to trust everything, and it is equally illogic to distrust anything.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 10:41:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 10:32:47 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:21:22 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:04:03 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
2 - Go look at the debt and deficits, by year, according to who controls congress. You can't just look at the POTUS.
Here is the number:
Prior to Ronald Reagan: 1.0 Trillion
Ronald Reagan added 1.9 Trillion (8 years)
George H.W. Bush added 1.5 Trillion (4 years)
Bill Clinton added 1.4 Trillion (8 years)
George W. Bush added 6.1 Trillion (8 years)
President Obama (so far) added 2.4 Trillion (4 years).

So...George W. Bush is our winner.

You didn't read what I wrote... and you are wrong at least with Obama's figure. You can't run 1 trilllion+ deficits for 4 years and only increase debt by 2.4 trillion.

I get the number from
Back to Work: Why we Need Smart Government for a Strong Economy by Bill Clinton (2010)
Yes, there is a 2-year gap, but most debt added by President Obama happened during the first two years of his presidency. After Republicans controlled the House after 2010 mid-term election, hardly any spending bills had been passed.

President Bill Clinton gets the figure from: The New York Times, and they get the figure from Department of Treasury. I have no way to know if Department of Treasury gets their number from POTUS.

But, even if it was the case, what is wrong with it? So none of the governmental information is reliable? Or are there any reasons to believe that the numbers have been manipulated? Or there are some other reasons? There is no reason to trust everything, and it is equally illogic to distrust anything.

How about, get the deficits from the whitehouse website, or from CBO.

You are being INCREDIBLY disingenuous... you are comparing 8 years of Bush to 2 years of Obama.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 10:41:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 10:27:05 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:23:37 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:06:08 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:04:03 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 11/12/2012 9:40:30 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 11/12/2012 9:30:48 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 11/12/2012 9:14:45 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/12/2012 8:01:58 PM, Ultra wrote:
This is getting ridiculous. This idea of a "fiscal cliff" - a horrible doomsday scenario where taxes go up to 1000% and small businesses fire workers and the military gets raped. Honestly? What was so horrible about the Clinton era tax rates? What is so horrible about modest overseas reductions? I swear, the entire narrative in this country has moved so far to the right, it scares the hell outta me. Please, stop listening to the big defense contractors and the legislators they own. And stop listening to the Republicans (and Democrats) who say that a 5% tax increase on the rich will crash the economy. In my opinion, we need this. Yes, it might hurt a little at first, but it is the only way we're responsibly getting this deficit under control.

You know who came up with the name "fiscal cliff?" Ben Bernanke.

Not really. Paul Krugman's pretty leftist and talks about the fiscal cliff a lot.

The difference is that in the Clinton Era we were not in a recession era but in an economic boom. During an economic boom, one is supposed to raise taxes, not lower them.

I, however don't believe the keynesian multiplier is currently that great and the US should work on reducing its deficits.

President Bill Clinton raised taxes early during his presidency when the economy was in a very bad shape (thanks to President George Bush). President Clinton raised taxes to pay off national debt and thereby easing the fear of investors. Democrats lost 1994 mid-term elections partially due to his tax policy. George W. Bush felt that government had too much money, so he signed a tax-cut...

Clinton did not pay off the debt. The federal debt increased every single year. He 'balanced' the budget because we borrowed that money from ourselves.

Also, keep in mind two things.

1 - Clinton got the boom from the dot-com bubble.

2 - Go look at the debt and deficits, by year, according to who controls congress. You can't just look at the POTUS.

Perhaps I should add a qualifier "Not completely." to make my points more clear. President Clinton was trying to balance the budge and pay off national debt. (Unlike President Reagan and President Bush(s))

1 - Clinton got the boom from the dot-come bubble
Without government policy, it is hard to image there would be a dot-come bubble. Government policies such as Tax policy, education policy, and among others, are essential to the economic boom.

2 - Go look at the debt and deficits, by year, according to who controls congress. You can't just look at the POTUS.
Here is the number:
Prior to Ronald Reagan: 1.0 Trillion
Ronald Reagan added 1.9 Trillion (8 years)
George H.W. Bush added 1.5 Trillion (4 years)
Bill Clinton added 1.4 Trillion (8 years)
George W. Bush added 6.1 Trillion (8 years)
President Obama (so far) added 2.4 Trillion (4 years).

So...George W. Bush is our winner.

How'd you pull that out of the bag? Obama has added about 6 trillion. His rate is twice as quick as Bush's!

Back to Work: Why we Need Smart Government for a Strong Economy by Bill Clinton (2010)
Yes, there is a 2-year gap, but most debt added by President Obama happened during the first two years of his presidency. After Republicans controlled the House after 2010 mid-term election, hardly any spending bills had been passed.

Another one is http://mediamatters.org...

So...

Lol, thanks for proving my point.

My pleasure. So no the question becomes:
Where is your 6 Trillion from anyway? I read Fox news frequently, but could not really find their sources. What kind of bills that President Obama had signed that could cost so much money? Affordable Care? Stimulus? Interest payment? or TRAP, the bush era's program?

Besides, check http://mediamatters.org...

The good thing is that they at least did some fact check...
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 10:44:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 10:41:16 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:32:47 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:21:22 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:04:03 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
2 - Go look at the debt and deficits, by year, according to who controls congress. You can't just look at the POTUS.
Here is the number:
Prior to Ronald Reagan: 1.0 Trillion
Ronald Reagan added 1.9 Trillion (8 years)
George H.W. Bush added 1.5 Trillion (4 years)
Bill Clinton added 1.4 Trillion (8 years)
George W. Bush added 6.1 Trillion (8 years)
President Obama (so far) added 2.4 Trillion (4 years).

So...George W. Bush is our winner.

You didn't read what I wrote... and you are wrong at least with Obama's figure. You can't run 1 trilllion+ deficits for 4 years and only increase debt by 2.4 trillion.

I get the number from
Back to Work: Why we Need Smart Government for a Strong Economy by Bill Clinton (2010)
Yes, there is a 2-year gap, but most debt added by President Obama happened during the first two years of his presidency. After Republicans controlled the House after 2010 mid-term election, hardly any spending bills had been passed.

President Bill Clinton gets the figure from: The New York Times, and they get the figure from Department of Treasury. I have no way to know if Department of Treasury gets their number from POTUS.

But, even if it was the case, what is wrong with it? So none of the governmental information is reliable? Or are there any reasons to believe that the numbers have been manipulated? Or there are some other reasons? There is no reason to trust everything, and it is equally illogic to distrust anything.

How about, get the deficits from the whitehouse website, or from CBO.

You are being INCREDIBLY disingenuous... you are comparing 8 years of Bush to 2 years of Obama.

Then please check this one.
http://mediamatters.org...

They used the figure from CBO. Besides, as I have said, from 2010-2012, hardly any spending bills had been passed due to gridlock in Wasintgtonh.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 10:45:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
TheElderScroll

http://www.whitehouse.gov...

2009: 11,875,851
2010: 13,528,807
2011: 14,764,222
2012: 16,350,885
2013: 17,547,936

End of 2009, federal debt was 11.8 trillion. End of 2013, should be around 17.5 trillion. That's all Obama.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 10:47:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 10:41:17 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:27:05 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:23:37 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:06:08 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:04:03 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 11/12/2012 9:40:30 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 11/12/2012 9:30:48 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 11/12/2012 9:14:45 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/12/2012 8:01:58 PM, Ultra wrote:
This is getting ridiculous. This idea of a "fiscal cliff" - a horrible doomsday scenario where taxes go up to 1000% and small businesses fire workers and the military gets raped. Honestly? What was so horrible about the Clinton era tax rates? What is so horrible about modest overseas reductions? I swear, the entire narrative in this country has moved so far to the right, it scares the hell outta me. Please, stop listening to the big defense contractors and the legislators they own. And stop listening to the Republicans (and Democrats) who say that a 5% tax increase on the rich will crash the economy. In my opinion, we need this. Yes, it might hurt a little at first, but it is the only way we're responsibly getting this deficit under control.

You know who came up with the name "fiscal cliff?" Ben Bernanke.

Not really. Paul Krugman's pretty leftist and talks about the fiscal cliff a lot.

The difference is that in the Clinton Era we were not in a recession era but in an economic boom. During an economic boom, one is supposed to raise taxes, not lower them.

I, however don't believe the keynesian multiplier is currently that great and the US should work on reducing its deficits.

President Bill Clinton raised taxes early during his presidency when the economy was in a very bad shape (thanks to President George Bush). President Clinton raised taxes to pay off national debt and thereby easing the fear of investors. Democrats lost 1994 mid-term elections partially due to his tax policy. George W. Bush felt that government had too much money, so he signed a tax-cut...

Clinton did not pay off the debt. The federal debt increased every single year. He 'balanced' the budget because we borrowed that money from ourselves.

Also, keep in mind two things.

1 - Clinton got the boom from the dot-com bubble.

2 - Go look at the debt and deficits, by year, according to who controls congress. You can't just look at the POTUS.

Perhaps I should add a qualifier "Not completely." to make my points more clear. President Clinton was trying to balance the budge and pay off national debt. (Unlike President Reagan and President Bush(s))

1 - Clinton got the boom from the dot-come bubble
Without government policy, it is hard to image there would be a dot-come bubble. Government policies such as Tax policy, education policy, and among others, are essential to the economic boom.

2 - Go look at the debt and deficits, by year, according to who controls congress. You can't just look at the POTUS.
Here is the number:
Prior to Ronald Reagan: 1.0 Trillion
Ronald Reagan added 1.9 Trillion (8 years)
George H.W. Bush added 1.5 Trillion (4 years)
Bill Clinton added 1.4 Trillion (8 years)
George W. Bush added 6.1 Trillion (8 years)
President Obama (so far) added 2.4 Trillion (4 years).

So...George W. Bush is our winner.

How'd you pull that out of the bag? Obama has added about 6 trillion. His rate is twice as quick as Bush's!

Back to Work: Why we Need Smart Government for a Strong Economy by Bill Clinton (2010)
Yes, there is a 2-year gap, but most debt added by President Obama happened during the first two years of his presidency. After Republicans controlled the House after 2010 mid-term election, hardly any spending bills had been passed.

Another one is http://mediamatters.org...

So...

Lol, thanks for proving my point.

My pleasure. So no the question becomes:
Where is your 6 Trillion from anyway? I read Fox news frequently, but could not really find their sources. What kind of bills that President Obama had signed that could cost so much money? Affordable Care? Stimulus? Interest payment? or TRAP, the bush era's program?

Besides, check http://mediamatters.org...

The good thing is that they at least did some fact check...

"The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.": http://www.cbsnews.com...

That's as of March. It's around 6 trillion now.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 10:47:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 9:14:45 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/12/2012 8:01:58 PM, Ultra wrote:
This is getting ridiculous. This idea of a "fiscal cliff" - a horrible doomsday scenario where taxes go up to 1000% and small businesses fire workers and the military gets raped. Honestly? What was so horrible about the Clinton era tax rates? What is so horrible about modest overseas reductions? I swear, the entire narrative in this country has moved so far to the right, it scares the hell outta me. Please, stop listening to the big defense contractors and the legislators they own. And stop listening to the Republicans (and Democrats) who say that a 5% tax increase on the rich will crash the economy. In my opinion, we need this. Yes, it might hurt a little at first, but it is the only way we're responsibly getting this deficit under control.

You know who came up with the name "fiscal cliff?" Ben Bernanke.

Not really. Paul Krugman's pretty leftist and talks about the fiscal cliff a lot.

The difference is that in the Clinton Era we were not in a recession era but in an economic boom. During an economic boom, one is supposed to raise taxes, not lower them.

I, however don't believe the keynesian multiplier is currently that great and the US should work on reducing its deficits.

I can never figure you out. It's kinda frustrating.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.