Do you honestly think a Republican president and a Republican congress would practice austerity? (Reagan, Democrats)

[jodipper]

These are not the same republicans. Since Bush left office there are 106 new Republican congressmen and 17 new Republican senators. With all the retirements and winning a few new seats these numbers will be much higher in January. If enough new faces win you will see Speaker Cantor.

[Captain Obvious]

Okay there are three things that need to be either cut or financed with new taxes in order to tackle the debt/deficit.

1. Medicare
2. Social Security
3. Military Spending.

Neither party wants to touch Medicare or Social Security.

Democrats are a little more willing to tackle defense spending, but military contractors and bases aren't just in Republican areas.

The fact is that no one likes austerity. The only way this gets tackled is when we are forced to do it.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by Mr. Mon

And what exactly caused said deficits and debt? No one is saying the Democratic controlled House was free from sin, but at least try to be honest with context when you post these "facts" in thread after thread.

Federal spending has more than doubled over the last decade. Of course spending is to blame for both deficits, and debt. Where do you live that isnt true?

[Mr. Mon]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Federal spending has more than doubled over the last decade. Of course spending is to blame for both deficits, and debt. Where do you live that isnt true?

The Bush era tax cuts are the single largest contributor to deficit. That combined with huge spending increases starting in 2001, two unfunded wars, and the recession are why we are in this mess.

That is taking the "facts" you posted and putting them into an honest context.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by Mr. Mon

The Bush era tax cuts are the single largest contributor to deficit. That combined with huge spending increases starting in 2001, two unfunded wars, and the recession are why we are in this mess.

That is taking the "facts" you posted and putting them into an honest context.

More left wing lies. The Bush era tax cuts INCREASED federal revenues, just like the Clinton era tax cuts did..

But even for the sake of embarassing you, tell me how allowing people to keep their money, creates a recession.

Dont lecture me about honest context until you get your facts straight.

[Mr. Mon]

Originally Posted by pghquest

More left wing lies. The Bush era tax cuts INCREASED federal revenues, just like the Clinton era tax cuts did..

But even for the sake of embarassing you, tell me how allowing people to keep their money, creates a recession.

Dont lecture me about honest context until you get your facts straight.

Incentives for investment that creates income to be taxed decreases once you reach a certain point. We've reached that point.

So do you care to show how the tax cuts without corresponding spending decreases didn't contribute to the deficit?
The role of Bush tax cuts in the deficit - CBS News
Try to post something that isn't an op-ed or someone's terrible blog. Maybe someone who uses CBO data.
So please, feel free to embarrass me with your "facts"

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by Mr. Mon

Incentives for investment that creates income to be taxed decreases once you reach a certain point. We've reached that point.

So do you care to show how the tax cuts without corresponding spending decreases didn't contribute to the deficit?
The role of Bush tax cuts in the deficit - CBS News
Try to post something that isn't an op-ed or someone's terrible blog. Maybe someone who uses CBO data.
So please, feel free to embarrass me with your "facts"

Liberal ignorance at its finest..

Revenues as a percentage of GDP in 1987, 18.4%, in 1995, it was 18.5%, in 2006, it remained at 18.4%.. And thats well after the so called Bush tax cuts..

No, tax cuts did not increase the deficits, SPENDING increases did.

Once again you've been proven wrong.

[Mr. Mon]

Revenues as a % of GDP were at 19.5% in 2001 and dipped to 16% after the implementation of the tax cuts. Revenues then rose sharply due to investment returns fueled by the stock market and the peak of the housing bubble in 2006-2007. All the while spending was going through the roof pushing up the deficits and the nations debt. Revenues plummeted after the collapse, interest kept racking-up on that debt, and here we are.

I'm not saying that tax cuts can't be used to stimulate spending. But their is a point of diminishing returns and they have to be backed-up with flat spending. We didn't do that throughout the Bush II years. Shoot Republicans didn't even fund the wars through normal budgetary methods, but yet you claimed that the deficit is Obama's fault.

All you proved was that the Republican controlled House and Senate wasted opportunity and spent like drunken sailors when times were relatively good.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by Mr. Mon

Revenues as a % of GDP were at 19.5% in 2001

You mean revenues as a % of GDP climbed to 19.5% after the Clinton tax cuts? Wouldnt this directly dispute your bs that tax cuts are responsible for deficits?

Originally Posted by Mr. Mon

and dipped to 16% after the implementation of the tax cuts.

Wrong, it dipped due to a recession, and then rose back up AFTER the tax cuts to 18.4%.

Originally Posted by Mr. Mon

Revenues then rose sharply due to investment returns fueled by the stock market and the peak of the housing bubble in 2006-2007.

Which again, disputes what you said which was that revenues dropped after tax cuts.

Originally Posted by Mr. Mon

All the while spending was going through the roof pushing up the deficits and the nations debt.

You mean I was correct when I said SPENDING is responsible for deficits and the debt? Yes, yes I was.. thank you very much...

Originally Posted by Mr. Mon

Revenues plummeted after the collapse, interest kept racking-up on that debt, and here we are.

Revenues always plummet after a collapse, why would this one be any different than others? And again, this doesnt support your statement that tax cuts are responsible for the collapse. Still waiting for you to substantiate that one..

Originally Posted by Mr. Mon

I'm not saying that tax cuts can't be used to stimulate spending. But their is a point of diminishing returns and they have to be backed-up with flat spending.

Yes, its called the laffer curve, and you wont ever hear me supporting the massive spending increases, but you are once again, validating what I said is correct, SPENDING is responsible.. not tax cuts..

Originally Posted by Mr. Mon

We didn't do that throughout the Bush II years.

Never claimed otherwise, in fact I clearly said spending has doubled over the last DECADE.. and that would include the Bush years

Originally Posted by Mr. Mon

Shoot Republicans didn't even fund the wars through normal budgetary methods,

yes it was, it was just in different budgets..

Originally Posted by Mr. Mon

but yet you claimed that the deficit is Obama's fault.

And here you show your inability to do math again. The war spending is about 1/10th of the deficit. to pretend its a large percentage of the deficits is just ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Mr. Mon

All you proved was that the Republican controlled House and Senate wasted opportunity and spent like drunken sailors when times were relatively good.

So you agree SPENDING is the problem? Why dont you have a problem with the spending increases under Democrats who increased it far greater? In the last 3 years alone we've added $600 Billion to spending, but you want to keep looking back at periods of time whining about the $150B-$250B in deficits under Bush.. Thats ridiculous.

[michiganmoon]

Originally Posted by Mr. Mon

The Bush era tax cuts are the single largest contributor to deficit. That combined with huge spending increases starting in 2001, two unfunded wars, and the recession are why we are in this mess.

That is taking the "facts" you posted and putting them into an honest context.

Excuses for Obama.

Obama has added 5.6 Trillion in debt and counting on his watch.

It is estimated that 1.3 Trillion of that is from extending the Bush tax cuts -- Obama did this on his own free will, Obama said it would be foolish to raise taxes on anyone in a recession. This was his choice, he could have vetoed what the Democratic controlled congress passed, instead he openly promoted it.

The 2 wars have cost around 0.3 Trillion on Obama's watch. In fact, Obama made the choice to increase $$$ to Afghanistan and not pull out of Iraq sooner, opting to stick with Bush's timeline that Bush made with the Iraqi Government.

Obama still has 4 Trillion in debt to explain even if you excuse him for the choices he made above.

Obama chose to break his promise to cut the deficit in half, instead he increased it - he didn't even try to lower it.

Obama chose to break his promise to go line by line in the budget and cut waste - he can't even pass an annual budget once in 4 years.

Obama chose to break his promise to end all no bid contracts for over 25K.

Obama chose to break his promise to remover lobbyists from the WH.

Obama chose to break his promise to stop by veto if necessary earmarks until they were back under 1994 levels - instead they have increased.

Obama is a grown man, treat him like one. When you pretend that he is a little kid that should be coddled it actually hurts the country and Obama. Force him to step up his game, make him make adult decisions and try to live up to his promises.