Re: Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo
<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mXahlA8CTB4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
OK, back to my argument.
Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Economy?
Hell fuck'in yes!!!!!
Your "argument" is a non-argument because the premise that Obama is doing everything he can to "help" the economy is outright false! It's already been proven you can not spend your way to prosperity
When you're in a hole, the first thing you do is STOP DIGGIN!
<IFRAME height=349 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JnX-D4kkPOQ" frameBorder=0 width=425 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>
Where did you get that?
Numbers don't lie, opinions do.
you like that, don't u
Pres Obama & "W" recieved significantly more tax revenues that Pres Clinton, yet today, we are 1.6 Trillion over-budget. How does that happen?
3 B T
Pres Obama & "W" recieved significantly more tax revenues that Pres Clinton
post it
Tax Receipts
1993.....1,154,471
1994.....1,258,721
1995.....1,351,932
1996.....1,453,177
1997.....1,579,423
1998.....1,721,955
1999.....1,827,645
2000.....2,025,457
2001.....1,991,426
2002.....1,853,395
2003.....1,782,532
2004.....1,880,279
2005.....2,153,859
2006.....2,407,254
2007.....2,570,000
2008.....2,582,000
Like I Said; Pres Obama & "W" recieved more tax revenues that Pres Clinton, yet today, we are 1.6 Trillion over-budget. How does that happen?
3 B T
I'm confused. President Obama didn't take office until January 20. 2009. His budget didn't pass (stimulus) until later that year. Where are Obama's tax receipts in your post?
I have no idea what the answer is, but its a great question. Before comparisons can be made, apples need to be aligned next to apples and oranges, the same.
Once/if he clears that up, then we will discuss his claim and I will throw in GW's Medicare part 'D'.
How are you confused? Following receipts of a specified year is not complicated
The chart only went to 2009 but I included 2009 receipts (over 2.6 Trill in 2009)
1993.....1,154,471
1994.....1,258,721
1995.....1,351,932
1996.....1,453,177
1997.....1,579,423
1998.....1,721,955
1999.....1,827,645
2000.....2,025,457
2001.....1,991,426
2002.....1,853,395
2003.....1,782,532
2004.....1,880,279
2005.....2,153,859
2006.....2,407,254
2007.....2,570,000
2008.....2,582,000
2009.....2,616,397
Like I said, the govt is recieving a lot more tax revenue than when Clinton was in office. Why do we have a $1.6 Trill deficit?
Maybe we should go back to Clinton Era spending levels!
And what does Medicare Part D have to do with Tax receipts?
Spell check!recieving
You answered your own question. The data stops at 2009. President Obama took the oath of office on January 20, 2009 and inherited a $1.2 trillion dollar deficit. It is irrelevant how much tax receipts GW took in with respect to President Obama's term. Your continued attempt to link Obama to GW is continually laughable!
It's in no one's interest to sabotage the U.S economy . . .
That don't mean Rush wanted to sabotage the whole economy sounds like he wanted to stop Obama from being successful and if it meant boycotting GM then so be it. It's really a desperation type move imo, sort of a last stand for demagogues.
Maybe we should go back to Clinton Era spending levels!
:
Which would mean going back to the Clinton tax rates and ending the Bush tax cuts. So we agree.
We're halfway there, let me explain;
In 2000, Clinton raised 2.025 Trillion in tax revenue (his best year, revenue-wise). He spent 1.788 Trillion, which led to an approx. $200 Billion surplus.
Fast-forward to 2008, Tax revenue was $2.523 Trillion (over $500 Billion more). However, $2.982 Trillion was spent, which obviously led to a deficit.
3 Points:
1) If spending is at $1.788 Trillion (Clinton era), we would still operate at a surplus as we still recieve over $2 Trillion in tax revenue.
2) Despite the "Bush Tax Cuts", tax revenue has increased since 2000, the year that led to the highest tax revenue during the Clinton era. From an objective standpoint, the evidence shows that tax cuts produce more tax revenue.
Bush collected $2,153 Trill in 2005
Bush collected $2,406 Trill in 2006
Bush collected $2,567 Trill in 2007
Bush collected $2,523 Trill in 2008
All of these years eclipsed Clintons record tax revenue of $2.025 Trill
3) Pres. Obama's projected spending in 2011 is $3.818 Trillion......Upgrade, thats more than twice of what Clinton spent! We would have to double the tax rate just to keep up with DC's spending..........At the expense of whom?
The impact of the tax cuts on economic growth is a matter of debate among economists. We're not voicing a view on whether the tax cuts should have been enacted; that, too, is a separate discussion. But it is clear they did not "increase revenues."
– by Lori Robertson
So you agree that:
Is It In The Best Interest Of The GOP/Libertarians For Them To Sabotage the Econo
When you're marginalized in a debate, run to Factcheck
She says it is clear the tax cuts did not "increase revenues". But thats what happened, as I spelled out to you with hard numbers! ! !
So where are the jobs?
It is in the best interest of Americans that govt spending be cut to $1.788 Trillion (Clinton Era)
So where are the jobs?
When you're marginalized in a debate, run to Factcheck
Damn. LOL. One side in a debate criticizing the other, FOR USING FACTS
Damn. LOL. One side in a debate criticizing the other, FOR USING FACTS
[/size]
you aint right Que
But I manage to lay out hard numbers to show tax collections were greater under Bush than Clinton.......that was not, and can not be refuted.
Again;
It is in the best interest of Americans that govt spending be cut to $1.788 Trillion (Clinton Era)
Damn. LOL. One side in a debate criticizing the other, FOR USING FACTS
isoruck theacts.