Republican presidents haven't reduced debt in decades
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The green line shows what would have happened to the national debt if Reagan and the Bushes had balanced their budgets as Reagan claimed he would. G.W. Bush, in all modesty, claimed he would "retire nearly $1 trillion in debt over the next four years. This will be the largest debt reduction ever achieved by any nation at any time."
Republicans are quite embarrassed by this performance, so they have invented a cover story: The Democratic Congress did it. Nice try. But for 12 of the 20 years the Congress was not Democratic. Also, presidents can veto, and when it was Democratic, Congress passed smaller budgets on average than the Republican Presidents asked for. Presidents propose the budget, and they have the most influence.
The green line shows what would have happened to the national debt if Reagan and the Bushes had balanced their budgets as Reagan claimed he would. G.W. Bush, in all modesty, claimed he would "retire nearly $1 trillion in debt over the next four years. This will be the largest debt reduction ever achieved by any nation at any time."
Republicans are quite embarrassed by this performance, so they have invented a cover story: The Democratic Congress did it. Nice try. But for 12 of the 20 years the Congress was not Democratic. Also, presidents can veto, and when it was Democratic, Congress passed smaller budgets on average than the Republican Presidents asked for. Presidents propose the budget, and they have the most influence.
You'd still be in a Cold War and you would have pulled a Clinton and ignored the fact that you had war declared on your sorry azz.
Making them pay 35-40% in taxes rather than 13% is taxing them to death? Wow, I'm not wealthy or anything (although I aspire to be) but I'm being taxed at 33% now so I know I'm good as dead according to your philosophy. But all seriousness, I'm being taxes 33% I feel greater effects with that being taken out of my check rather than someone making $250k annually. The wealthy know there are far too many loopholes along with companies but hell I don't blame them for using the loopholes, as I would too. So lets close them and make them pay 33% or more. We're not asking them to pay 70% of their income to the IRS but just at the very minimum to pay what there supposed to be paying.
What is your actual effective tax rate? If you are truly paying 33% in taxes after deductions, you need to fire your tax Preparer, because they're an idiot.
This is where I have a huge problem with the whole "the rich don't pay their fair share" argument. If you are looking at tax brackets, it almost looks valid. However, once you figure in deductions and tax breaks, most wealthy people are actually paying a higher effective tax rate on income than the middle class.
Making them pay 35-40% in taxes rather than 13% is taxing them to death? Wow, I'm not wealthy or anything (although I aspire to be) but I'm being taxed at 33% now so I know I'm good as dead according to your philosophy. But all seriousness, I'm being taxes 33% I feel greater effects with that being taken out of my check rather than someone making $250k annually. The wealthy know there are far too many loopholes along with companies but hell I don't blame them for using the loopholes, as I would too. So lets close them and make them pay 33% or more. We're not asking them to pay 70% of their income to the IRS but just at the very minimum to pay what there supposed to be paying.
You can tax them at 100%, but the deficit will still be hardly impacted.
The point is that revenue doesn't matter if spending is out of control and the voting majority doesn't care how large the debt grows.
I don't like Obama's spending either. I'm a fiscal conservative and if the gop were too (they are not) they might have a chance at my vote. But since the supposed pillar of their platform is a mirage, then I have no choice given the gop's social stances. I feel exactly like the guy who wrote the link I posted.
We are looking over the precipice with a $16 trillion national debt, and any president who is not demanding serious spending cuts, and sends us to $20 trillion in the next three years, will be a traitor to the nation, I don't know how else to put it.
So my question to you people who voted for Obama, did you vote for him with the knowledge that he will not take us to $20 trillion in three years or less?
The green line shows what would have happened to the national debt if Reagan and the Bushes had balanced their budgets as Reagan claimed he would. G.W. Bush, in all modesty, claimed he would "retire nearly $1 trillion in debt over the next four years. This will be the largest debt reduction ever achieved by any nation at any time."
Republicans are quite embarrassed by this performance, so they have invented a cover story: The Democratic Congress did it. Nice try. But for 12 of the 20 years the Congress was not Democratic. Also, presidents can veto, and when it was Democratic, Congress passed smaller budgets on average than the Republican Presidents asked for. Presidents propose the budget, and they have the most influence.
Thats fine, ut as your own gragh shows 08 started the massive increase. Obama of course owns this as sitting president. Your own gragh shows that Obama is worse than GWB.
Thats fine, ut as your own gragh shows 08 started the massive increase. Obama of course owns this as sitting president. Your own gragh shows that Obama is worse than GWB.
The graph also saddles Bush with all of TARP, even though he set aside $350 billion for president-elect 0bama. All but $11 billion of the TARP has paid back. So that graph should deduct it from Bush, but they won't because it helps make 0bama look like he is not all that bad.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
