Thread: They chose to fail.

Originally Posted by 9aces

Well since 17 of the 20 presidents since 1900 have all added to the debt, and not one single year since 1957 has the country not run in the red it's not exactly something Reagan or Bush created.

But over 90% of the debt is due to the policies of Reagan and the Bushes.
So it really betrays a lack of understanding of the problem when you start blaming Woodrow Wilson.

The debt was less than a trillion, when Reagan reversed a 35 year trend of declining debt as a % of GDP, and a 50 year trend of reduced concentration of wealth. I'm pointing to the guy and to the policy that began the upsurge in the debt. You're mealy mouthing factoids trying to deny what actually happened.

Originally Posted by Sadanie

So, what would satisfy your "credibility" criteria?

If I found that same information coming from Fox News? Sorry, I don't think they are into providing information that doesn't meet their goal!

And, I didn't accuse anyone SPECIFICALLY in believing in legends. . .
No, can we drop this and look at factual data?

By the way, Fearandloathing didn't provide ANY link or any data to support his claim. . .or did I miss it?

Or is it that, just the "word of mouth" is credible coming from some posters, but even factual link, providing factual data must be scrutinized and belittled if they are posted by other posters?

No...what he posted actually happened, you know, on someone's watch, what you linked to was some hypothetical scenario posted by some disgraced Governor.

As for what would satisfy my credibility criteria...i never mentionned credibility once, that was you - when you said:

Originally Posted by Sadanie

If you are interested in FACTS, rather than "urban legends" and canned propaganda, you may want to go to this link:

And thwn linkws to an article written by Elliot Spitzer, which you have subsequently changed so i guess we should drop it, as the whole thing is now moot as you seem to have backed off your original claims altogether. As for saying you never accused anyone specifically of believing in legends, here's the quote again:

Originally Posted by Sadanie

If you are interested in FACTS, rather than "urban legends" and canned propaganda, you may want to go to this link:

Given that the post was quote, aimed specifically at another poster, yes, you did indeed accuse another member of believing in an urban legend. But as you said, we should just drop this and you can continue on your merry way.

Originally Posted by headbanger

***Please explain why it is crazy to want to live within a reasonable taxation ?
***Why is it crazy to want our government to live within it's means and follow the laws ?

Reasonable taxation pays the bills.
When our taxes are the lowest of any major modern country, and we can't pay our bills, low taxes just may be part of the problem. Especially since we were paying our bills before we lowered the taxes.

CRAZY is thinking that if you lower taxes, the opposition party will lower spending.

CRAZY is thinking that you understand the constitution better than the Supreme Court, because you learned all about it listening to the radio.

CRAZY is thinking we can have the most expensive military in the history of the world and tax cuts.

Originally Posted by Traveler

No...what he posted actually happened, you know, on someone's watch, what you linked to was some hypothetical scenario posted by some disgraced Governor.

Actually, if you had taken the pain to go to the "disgraced Governor's" article, you would have noticed that the era of JFK was ALSO part of his graph. [/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Traveler

As for what would satisfy my credibility criteria...i never mentionned credibility once, that was you - when you said:

you are correct, you didn't in so many word "question credibility." You just "poopooed" my link as being beneath your level of interest because it the article was written by a "disgraced Governor!" And this, obviously, without taking the time to even look at that article or that graph, or you would have noticed that JFK's era was included in the graph!

Originally Posted by Traveler

And thwn linkws to an article written by Elliot Spitzer, which you have subsequently changed so i guess we should drop it, as the whole thing is now moot as you seem to have backed off your original claims altogether. As for saying you never accused anyone specifically of believing in legends, here's the quote again:

I didn't change the Elliot Spitzer's link. . .I just came back to make sure it was correct and that anyone with enough interest to not pre-judge an article based merely on the fact that a "disgraced governor" had used the services of a hooker would have no problem accessing that link. If you can't do it, I probably made a mistake, and I'll be happy to provide you with a more accurate link.

And, since this first link didn't satisfy your criteria, I provided a SECOND link that I hoped might be more satisfactory to you.

Given that the post was quote, aimed specifically at another poster, yes, you did indeed accuse another member of believing in an urban legend. But as you said, we should just drop this and you can continue on your merry way.

Funny how this work! When I speak of "certain quarters" being more willing to believe in "canned propaganda" or "urban legends," I was actually thinking of the very broad Fox News addicts population. Is Fearandloathing a Fox addict? I never noticed that.

Good evening to you too!

Originally Posted by goober

Reasonable taxation pays the bills.
When our taxes are the lowest of any major modern country, and we can't pay our bills, low taxes just may be part of the problem. Especially since we were paying our bills before we lowered the taxes.

CRAZY is thinking that if you lower taxes, the opposition party will lower spending.

CRAZY is thinking that you understand the constitution better than the Supreme Court, because you learned all about it listening to the radio.

CRAZY is thinking we can have the most expensive military in the history of the world and tax cuts.

First off... I said reasonable taxation.... We are not taxed reasonably.

Second.... we are not the lowest.

third..... if we stop all the bloat, corruption and pork, it would not require all the current taxes to run the nation.

fourth.... our courts are only experts in trying to change things to conform to "their" ideologies and not to what is best for our nation.

Originally Posted by goober

But over 90% of the debt is due to the policies of Reagan and the Bushes.
So it really betrays a lack of understanding of the problem when you start blaming Woodrow Wilson.

The debt was less than a trillion, when Reagan reversed a 35 year trend of declining debt as a % of GDP, and a 50 year trend of reduced concentration of wealth. I'm pointing to the guy and to the policy that began the upsurge in the debt. You're mealy mouthing factoids trying to deny what actually happened.

Well let's see, 90% of 14.5 Trillion would be 13.05 Trillion.

Owebama is responsible for 4.569 trillion
Clinton 1.115 trillion

That's about 5.68 trillion, which is roughly 39% for 10.5 years of control, versus about 7.91 trillion which is roughly 54% of the total under Reagan and the Bush's for a total of 20 years of control.

Or in other words, roughly 3.7% of the debt has been added each year of the Clinton/Obama presidencies, versus 2.7% in each of the Bush1/2/Reagan years.

Math just isn't your friend at all is it Goober?

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

Originally Posted by RDK

Only partially correct.

We did keep our social safety net.

We did reduce our deficit to the point where until the 2008 economic crisis we had a surplus and were making great strides against the accumulated debt.

The reduction in the deficit came about as a result of massive spending cuts. This happened under the right wing Conservative government of Brian Maloney.

The tax cuts came later.

We kept our economy intact because the financial sector was strongly regulated and controlled from the excesses of lending that lead to the debt crisis that exists today.

Of course having an abundance of natural resources did not hurt our economy in the least.

The spending cuts came first, the regulation and social safety net were in place and kept in place and the tax cuts, such as they were, came after when the economy was performing.

Well we need to correct some of your assertions...

Mulroney not Maloney, ran the highest deficit of ANY prime minister in Canada's history despite implementation of the GST [VAT]. And, even with the enormity of that windfall, he STILL ran a deficit. There is a reason his party was dealt the greatest defeat in Canadian Parliamentary history going from 295 seats to two. When he stepped down he had an 11% approval rating.

It was Jean Chretien's Liberals with Paul Martin at the helm of Finance under intense pressure from Preston Manning's Reform Party who cut spending to near starvation levels in the 1990's. The social safety net was barely kept in tact as medicare payments to the provinces were slashed from 50% to 17% in one year!, creating "death lists", people dying while waiting for medical treatments. At the same time disability payments were frozen and some 125,000 people were denied benefits. Mental institutions were closed, the armed forces budget was slashed etc. The government raided a $350 million surplus in Employment Insurance to which they were not entitled, and slashed benefits and terms to the lowest levels in Canadian history.

They increased corporate taxes and implemented new point of sale taxes, 4 cents a liter on gasoline and brought in user fees, the biggest of which was in airports which raised $240 million a year directly out of traveler's pockets.

We did, in the late 1990's keep our regulations on banks after extreme pressure from the Clinton administration and once again it was Preston Manning who, as adviser, helped keep them in tact along with some extreme pressure from Gordon Thieson the then Bank of Canada governor and David Dodge his successor.

The first round of income tax cuts came under the Conservatives beginning in 2003 and are continuing with further deficit reduction promised and budgeted in the next four years. It was also under Harper's Conservatives that medicare funding was restored.

Originally Posted by Sadanie

So, what would satisfy your "credibility" criteria?

If you actually said anything that was credible instead of this constant barrage of everything is someone else's fault but OweBama. Or, you could go to the government web site and look at the historical record of tax rates versus income dating back to 1960. If you are going to challenge established information then you need to site your source rather than dismiss it as "urban legend".

Originally Posted by FearandLoathing

If you actually said anything that was credible instead of this constant barrage of everything is someone else's fault but OweBama. Or, you could go to the government web site and look at the historical record of tax rates versus income dating back to 1960. If you are going to challenge established information then you need to site your source rather than dismiss it as "urban legend".

Because my responding to constant badgering of everything even loosely (sometime not at all. . .) related to Obama is worse than your constant badering of the same person?

I don't think so, and I do not believe there is anything against expressing one's opinion in this forum.

And where do you think the basic data for the link I gave came from?

Why don't YOU demonstrate with one of your favorite source that higher taxes are the cause of a lower GDP?

I would really love to see that!

9,
What is the quality of that debt rather than the quantity?
Who is gaining for from that debt both globally and at home.

Simply spouting out numbers makes no sense until we define our national identity, which we seemed to have lost, and goals.

Originally Posted by 9aces

Well let's see, 90% of 14.5 Trillion would be 13.05 Trillion.

Owebama is responsible for 4.569 trillion
Clinton 1.115 trillion

That's about 5.68 trillion, which is roughly 39% for 10.5 years of control, versus about 7.91 trillion which is roughly 54% of the total under Reagan and the Bush's for a total of 20 years of control.

Or in other words, roughly 3.7% of the debt has been added each year of the Clinton/Obama presidencies, versus 2.7% in each of the Bush1/2/Reagan years.

Math just isn't your friend at all is it Goober?

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

Bush left Obama a trillion dollar deficit, he owns most of what has happened in the last couple of years, I go by the policy that created the deficit, not by whoever happens to take office in the middle of a disaster.

Would Obama have racked up 4 trillion in deficits if Bush had left him the 300 billion surplus that was there when Bush took office?

Clinton took office with record deficits in place, his policies lead to surpluses.

Most of that debt is a result of taxes that are set too low.
If low taxes cause growth, why was the economy collapsing in 2008, after 8 years of low taxes?

Originally Posted by goober

Bush left Obama a trillion dollar deficit, he owns most of what has happened in the last couple of years, I go by the policy that created the deficit, not by whoever happens to take office in the middle of a disaster.

Would Obama have racked up 4 trillion in deficits if Bush had left him the 300 billion surplus that was there when Bush took office?

Clinton took office with record deficits in place, his policies lead to surpluses.

Most of that debt is a result of taxes that are set too low.
If low taxes cause growth, why was the economy collapsing in 2008, after 8 years of low taxes?

Well, since Obama signed the tax cut extension into law, he's responsible for the low tax problem, no?

Originally Posted by goober

Bush left Obama a trillion dollar deficit, he owns most of what has happened in the last couple of years, I go by the policy that created the deficit, not by whoever happens to take office in the middle of a disaster.

By not making changes to said policy it becomes his policy. He left Obama a trillion dollar hole in his last budget, and with the first budget he signed Obama took a 1.017 trillion dollar addition to the debt from Bush and yielded a 1.884 trillion addition to the debt.

Originally Posted by goober

Would Obama have racked up 4 trillion in deficits if Bush had left him the 300 billion surplus that was there when Bush took office?

Except of course there was no such surplus.

09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86

Now even you should be able to work a calculator and see that instead of the 300 billion surplus you seem to think existed (only as a figment of your imagination) instead 133 Billion more was added to the debt. Your math is 433 billion off.

Originally Posted by goober

Clinton took office with record deficits in place, his policies lead to surpluses.

Funny, the US Treasury who keeps track of the debt to the penny can't find any of those mythical surpluses. That's of course because they only exist as an accounting ploy which rather obviously is grossly inaccurate. Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38

Hint: When the number above is bigger than the number below, you added to the debt, which happened every single year Clinton was in office. Got close in 2000 though.

Originally Posted by goober

Most of that debt is a result of taxes that are set too low.
If low taxes cause growth, why was the economy collapsing in 2008, after 8 years of low taxes?

Low taxes caused growth, such however is not going to guarantee sustained growth, particularly when the bubble built by government policies burst as it had to, and it's continuing to make the problem worse by trying to prop it up.

By all means raise taxes as you're dying to do, you seem to like destroying the manufacturing base of this country. Might as well finish the job.