Debt limit will be reached on Monday...government shut down

It's not about "comparing" to anything, another of your phony assertions. The economic growth that was occurring in the recovery he inherited slowed and resulting growth in tax revenues slowed after he INCREASED the tax rates.

As already stated the recovery was stronger that had been predicted, that doesn't mitigate the fact his tax increase had a deleterious effect on that recovery and tax revenues, instead of that growth in revenues speeding up with the higher tax rates it slowed down.

Yes, if they had stated like liberals that those tax rate increases would speed up tax revenue growth and the economic growth. Even Clinton admitted he raised taxes too much.

 

Oh I'm sorry, I thought it was you who asserted Clinton's tax rate increase was the cause of the economic growth of the 90's. Glad to see you don't believe such nonsense.

See above, the recovery was stronger than predicted yet the tax increases still slowed that growth.

Already proved it with the data.

What do you mean he had? He certainly didn't create it as you agreed above, he did slow that growth and the double digit increase in revenues and highest GDP didn't occur until after he was forced to sign the Gingrich/Kasich tax rate cuts and welfare reforms. So what exactly do you mean he "had"?

Yes they could have believed like Democrats that the tax rate increases would increase the growth of the economy and tax revenues.

 

The goal is to lower the percent of GDP the government takes by growing the economy faster than we grow government thus the money stays in the free market and the tax payers pockets. The government has no appropriated percent of the national income nor claim to it. Bush43 had record revenues with strong revenue growth coming out of the recession and recovery of 2001-2003 and lowered the deficit back down to a measly $161 and rightfully lowered the percent of the GDP government was taking.

 

Except it would have been reduced earlier had his tax increase not slowed the economy and tax revenue growth from 9% down to 7% and had he not requested more spending that Congress authorized him.

And when he was finally forced to do so the economy went into overdrive and revenue growth go back on track and hit double digit.

And could he have been more wrong, he even admitted he raised taxes too much.

The economy was already slowing down in 2000 and resulting tax revenues were slowing down as has already been shown. The tax rate cuts did not go into effect until 2003, the tax return advance payments of summer 2001 were paid back there was no loss of revenues. During that recession the deficit hit $400B for one year, where did Obama and the Democrats take them after 2007? Then as the recovery took hold and revenues began to soar into the treasury they lowered the deficit back down to a measly $161B, where have Obama and the Democrats kept them the last five years?

And in spite of the economy which recovered stronger than had been predicted Clinton slowed that recovery with a tax increase that was not needed.

OH so are you asserting that had Obama increased tax rates and especially put capital gains back to the 29% Clinton raised them to the economy would have recovered quicker? Let's see your prove that we collect more capital gains and more income tax revenues at these higher rates.

Which is the opposite of what we want to happen. The goal is for government to take a smaller share of GDP by growing the economy and producing more tax payers than we grow government leaving more money in the private sector to grow the economy even more and pay the taxpayers more income.

 

By what latitude of construction, is there any delegated power to prosecute a warfare-state political-economy, in the terms, "to raise money for the general welfare"?

 

Economic growth with the Clinton tax cuts was better than Reagan's, Bush's, in fact every president since the 1960s.

Already stated your statements are fabricate bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

Tax revenues increased faster under Clinton after his tax increase than any other modern president and were why he turned the then record Republican deficit into a surplus.

Until Bush and the Republicans squandered it.

 

Caught you lying once again.

It sure was stronger. All the conservatives predicted Clinton's tax cuts would wreck the economy and kill jobs. Instead we had the longest boom in post war history and 23 million new jobs.

Could conservatives be more wrong?

LOL

I mean that after the Clinton tax increase that brought in unprecented revenue growth and balanced the budget, the economy boomed for the longest time since WWII.

Completely contrary to conservatives' claims that his tax increase would wreck the economy and kill jobs.

Could conservatives be more wrong?

Tax revenues grew under Clinton faster than any recent president. How would that be more wrong when they would have been right?

- - - Updated - - -

Caught you lying once again.

It sure was stronger. All the conservatives predicted Clinton's tax cuts would wreck the economy and kill jobs. Instead we had the longest boom in post war history and 23 million new jobs.

Could conservatives be more wrong?

LOL

I mean that after the Clinton tax increase that brought in unprecented revenue growth and balanced the budget, the economy boomed for the longest time since WWII.

Completely contrary to conservatives' claims that his tax increase would wreck the economy and kill jobs.

Could conservatives be more wrong?

Tax revenues grew under Clinton faster than any recent president. How would that be more wrong when they would have been right?

 

That may be the "pass the buck" conservative goal.

IMO the goal should be you pay for what your Govt spends, and when it spends money on unnecessary military and security buildups and mistaken wars, you don't slash revenues either nominally or relative to GDP and borrow more.

 

I hope it is a self-evident Truth that the Right cannot be trusted to do a good job unless they are willing to burden the wealthiest with wartime tax rates, even for a War on Drugs.

 

Not until he was forced to sign tax cuts and welfare reform, but you said it wasn't cause by his tax cuts.

Your stating so doesn't make it so, lack of rebuttal noted.

Note the word "under" because they didn't cause it and in fact slowed that increase, it only hit double digits after he was forced to sign the tax rate cuts Gingrich and Kasisch forced on him.

He opposed the measures that did so.

Hmm a recession caused the Obama deficits but not the Bush deficits according to you, want to reconcile that? Already proved otherwise, revenue growth was already declining before the Bush tax rate cuts took effect, a fact you can't get around.

 

How is mistaking what someone said a lie? So you do asserted Clinton's tax rate increase was the cause of the economic growth of the 90's. Or not?

Which is it?

And Clinton's tax rate increase slowed it along with revenue growth as previously shown.

Yes if they had said what Clinton and the Democrats said, that it would increase revenue growth.

Except it slowed it.

Except he opposed the measures that balanced it.

Because of the tax rate decreases he was forced to sign.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote Originally Posted by Bluesguy View Post
The goal is to lower the percent of GDP the government takes by growing the economy faster than we grow government thus the money stays in the free market and the tax payers pockets. The government has no appropriated percent of the national income nor claim to it. Bush43 had record revenues with strong revenue growth coming out of the recession and recovery of 2001-2003 and lowered the deficit back down to a measly $161 and rightfully lowered the percent of the GDP government was taking.

Try again to make some sense this time to what I said.

 

So you think the fed and treasury should just continue to print money which causes inflation and devalues the currency? And you think this is only a republican problem? You really believe that your party is free of any responsibility in all of this? Obama can ram through his socialist ACA "obamacare" in no time but he can't pass a budget in four years? He uses EO for all kinds of things but not to ass a budget.

I bet if I Iook up the word ignorant in the dictionary your photo is displayed.

 

i'll take that bet

 

Obviously you're the poster boy for ignorant, it's the congress that passes the budget, not the president. The GOP counts on ignorance like yours to get votes.

 

I believe we should solve simple poverty through public sector intervention as a form of investment in the general welfare that engenders a positive multiplier effect.

 

Why are we wasting the Peoples' time and tax monies, on any artificial debt ceiling?

 

BS

Neither does yours. Lack of any support or backup for your your BS noted.

Lack of support and backup noted.

Lack of support and backup noted.

Lack of support and backup noted.

 

Lack of support and proof noted.

Lack of support and proof noted.

Lack of support and proof noted.

Lack of support and proof noted.

Lack of support and proof noted.

Maybe that is your goal and the goal of those who like the Govt borrowing more money

 

Did the federal government shut down today? I really hope so, I don't want to imagine them being able to cause any further destruction of this nation.

 

Are you (*)(*)(*)(*)ing retarded?

 

But wait, obummer uses eo for all kinds of things that congress should be doing instead but you don't say anything about those. So why cant he bypass congress once again and ram through a budget?

Let me guess, because something republican something fault something blame right wing something.

Am I doin it rite?

Ps I dont vote republican or democrat, I vote third party. Only idiots continue the left/right fraud that is destroying the usa.

 

Not even the GOP is stupid enough (as a whole) to let our interest payments go into default. (Greece only did a partial default and the are still able to borrow money)

There are enough in the GOP that are smart enough to vote with the Dems... and life will go on.

Should we not make our interest payments ?? The empire would rapidly collapse.

Our income is roughly 2.1 Trillion and we spend 3.5 Trillion Defaulting means that no one would borrow us any more money so that 1.4 Trillion in spending would be gone. Keep in mind that of 2.1 Trillion ... much comes from income tax as the money goes to wages so decreased spending would result in a lower income guessing here .. but roughly to the tune of 500 billion which would leave us with about 1.6 Trillion to spend

This represents an almost 2 Trillion decrease in income .. and thus a 2 trillion decrease in spending or roughly 55% of what we spend.

The military would collapse - and there would be massive layoffs ... project funding would be dramatically reduced
Our world reserve currency status would be lost
Unemployment would rise to rediculous levels (not only through gov't job losses but because private and public company layoffs and closures due to decreased revenue)
Discretionary spending would cease - causing a further reduction in income.
Our financial institutions would dissappear .. we would see runs on most local banks.

Sometime in the midst of this chaos the second shoe would drop as municipalities and states went into default resulting in more layoffs .. project funding curtailed causing numerous private sector businesses to go under.

More layoffs .. Police in particular which represent a rediculous amount of State and Municipal spending.

I bring the Police up because we would be laying them off right at the time when civil unrest will explode.

Unlike Greece .. where almost no on has a Gun .. the civil unrest in the US would be a whole different story.

At some point .. even communism or some other form of dictatorship will start to look good .. "anything to stop the chaos" will be the chant of the raging masses.

 

Demands to repeat already proven facts already cited facts noted. Got your dancing shoes on I see.

- - - Updated - - -

Demand to repost already cited facts noted. Dancing again.