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.
More propaganda and Left-Wing lies. The DemoCrats have done little to help people and much to impoverish them. They do more to increase people's dependence on government, and little to help them to improve their standard of living. DemoCrats are oppressors.
Anti-poverty programs have reduced poverty. Your views, namely, you help the poor by letting them starve, so they have an incentive to work, has been the standard for thousands of years and hasn't raised the plight of the poor. Sorry, it's just an excuse to be selfish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
What makes you think billionaires pay less in taxes than the middle class?
Why do you mindlessly swallow leftist propaganda?
If something is true, it's not propaganda. Also, I didn't say billionaires pay less taxes than the middle-class, I just said they should pay more.
nice try OP, but bush only racked up $5 trillion in debt in eight years, remember he started 5 trillion in debt when he took office. obama took that $10 trillion in debt, and pushed it to $17 trillion, which when you do the math means that obama has ADDED $7 trillion in debt, in just over half the time it took bush to add $5 trillion. this thread is a failure.
I'm glad someone else pointed this out.....I was afraid when I read the first few posts that nobody had bothered to figure that out. Assuming this chart the OP provided is accurate, it shows clearly that Bush II started with a previous debt of over 5 trillion and he added 4.36 trillion. Note I'm not asserting that adding 4.36 trillion to the debt is not a problem, it sure is, but let's at least be accurate before we start hurling stones at him.
Obama's been in office for less than 6 years (compared to Bush II's 8 years, and Obama has added a couple trillion more in 6 years than Bush II managed to do in 8 years....according to the chart the OP provided. I think the OP didn't know how to read his own provided chart.
nice try OP, but bush only racked up $5 trillion in debt in eight years, remember he started 5 trillion in debt when he took office. obama took that $10 trillion in debt, and pushed it to $17 trillion, which when you do the math means that obama has ADDED $7 trillion in debt, in just over half the time it took bush to add $5 trillion. this thread is a failure.
A review of the facts show that most of the deficits during that time was due to lower revenue from the financial crisis. What did Obama do to bring on the crisis?
I'm glad someone else pointed this out.....I was afraid when I read the first few posts that nobody had bothered to figure that out. Assuming this chart the OP provided is accurate, it shows clearly that Bush II started with a previous debt of over 5 trillion and he added 4.36 trillion. Note I'm not asserting that adding 4.36 trillion to the debt is not a problem, it sure is, but let's at least be accurate before we start hurling stones at him.
Obama's been in office for less than 6 years (compared to Bush II's 8 years, and Obama has added a couple trillion more in 6 years than Bush II managed to do in 8 years....according to the chart the OP provided. I think the OP didn't know how to read his own provided chart.
this is an old and frankly rubbish argument where the liberals keep trying to prove that somehow obama is more fiscally responsible than bush was, and that just isnt the case. its blind worship of their golden boy dear leader chairman maobama.
this is an old and frankly rubbish argument where the liberals keep trying to prove that somehow obama is more fiscally responsible than bush was, and that just isnt the case. its blind worship of their golden boy dear leader chairman maobama.
Liberals respond with facts and figures, right wingers respond with name calling.
Liberals respond with facts and figures, right wingers respond with name calling.
So assuming you're correct that liberals only deal in facts, and others deal in various forms of name calling and/or misrepresenting and changing facts, I want you to explain the chart the OP provided along with your explanation on how Bush II added 10 trillion of debt to the existing debt at the time he took over the Presidency.
That was the entire point of this thread....so tell me how this is "fact" please :-) I'm dying to know since I cannot figure out how to read the OP's chart this way and I want to be "factually" correct in the future.
Since the OP refered to "republican nutjobs" (there's that name calling again).....I'm assumning the OP is some where to the left of the political spectrum.
Last edited by jasper1372; 10-22-2013 at 01:31 PM..
so if clinton had a surplus for 2,3,4 years...why did the debt increase those years...where did the money go...did clinton embezzle it???
liberal lie; republicans hate poor people and dont want a min wage.....the fact is there should not be a FEDERAL min wage....but the liberals cant figure it out....one size does NOT fit all
liberal lie; republicans are against immigrates.....nope....they don't want ILLEGAL immigration...oh I forget, liberals want to rename it to 'undocumented' because they are all for illegal actions
liberal lie; republicans dont want financial reform and are against dodd-frank.....nope want smart reform, not the knee-jerk policies of the fascist liberals ...especially since it doesn't touch fannie/Freddie
liberal lie.....for bank bailouts, but against the middleclass....not even close...there shouldn't be ANY bailouts...not for FAILED banks...or FAILED insurance...or FAILED car companies.....either that or bail out everyone...but the liberals want to pick and choose
Anti-poverty programs have reduced poverty. Your views, namely, you help the poor by letting them starve, so they have an incentive to work, has been the standard for thousands of years and hasn't raised the plight of the poor. Sorry, it's just an excuse to be selfish.
If something is true, it's not propaganda. Also, I didn't say billionaires pay less taxes than the middle-class, I just said they should pay more.
Why should billionaires pay more? Why should someone who either worked hard for their money, or inherited their money and worked hard to keep it...have to give it away at a highly increased rate than the rest of the country?
What people don't understand, because they like to listen to idiots like Warren Buffett that spout off about how their secretary paid more income taxes than they did last year, is that billionaires actually do pay quite a bit in taxes. What Buffett meant by his statement is that his secretary paid a higher percentage of her income in taxes, becuase people like Buffett don't actually make income and live off of royalties and dividends. So being literal, his secretary paid more income taxes, but he paid royalty taxes and paid quite a hefty sum. Billionaires pay taxes on all of their gains throughout the year, and turn over millions of dollars.
The top 1-2% of wealth in this country pays most of the tax in this country. Why shoul they have to pay more?
Lets talk about the disappearing Clinton "surplus". I wondered the exact same thing when I saw it. But I researched a bit.
So here is the deal, any surplus that social security has BY LAW must be invested in debt. So...when Social security has a surplus they invest it in debt, and increase the total debt number referenced by the link people are using.
To make it simple. Yes there was a surplus that year-and a few others. No its not as big as the democrats claim (another discussion entirely involving on budget vs off budget items that to be honest is just quibbling). But its very misleading to use that number to represent our deficits. And using it to "prove" Clinton didn't have one is especially misleading. Including social security in all of this is somewhat misleading as well as it is self funded.
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.
