|
18% of Americans think Obama is a Muslim... (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| The17sss |
Ahhh yes... one of my favorite myths. Clinton being responsible for balancing the budget. :stongue:
A president is never responsible for balancing a budget, Congress is. And the Republican controlled Congress rejected 6 strait budget proposals from Clinton, until he finally submitted a 7th that lined up with their budget parameters. Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress also forced Clinton to sign the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 which cut taxes. At that point, the economy took off jumping 4.4% in '97, 4.5% in '98, and 4.8% in '99. The balanced budget occurred AFTER 1997.
Contrast that with today. We've had a Democrat controlled Congress since 2006, and they are rubber stamping any and every budget that Obama wants... and look where we are. When Bush's tax cuts took effect in 2004, more tax revenue went to the government than ever before. That's how it works; if the rate is lower, but you have more employed people paying into the system, the overall receipts will be higher.
Also following Bush's tax cuts: From 2004 to 2007, the federal deficit was reduced 60% from $412 billion to $162 billion. Even with 9/11, Katrina, and 2 wars, we had the strongest overall economic productivity rate in 40 years. The facts are the facts. Just think about it rationally... does confiscatory taxation lead to economic growth? Of course not! |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
A president is never responsible for balancing a budget, Congress is. |
So basically what you're saying is that there was no point at all in you posting how much the deficit has gone up under Obama except in the fact that you don't like him?
;) |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
So basically what you're saying is that there was no point at all in you posting how much the deficit has gone up under Obama except in the fact that you don't like him?
;) |
haha... no, because he's on the same team as all factions in power; he is instructing them to draw things up however he and they see fit, and whatever gets dreamed up simply passes no matter what. There are no stop-gap measure like in most presidencies during this first 2 years, and they're taking full advantage. It's unchecked, runaway spending on a grand scale.
Plus I don't like him. :p |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
haha... no, because he's on the same team as all factions in power; he is instructing them to draw things up however he and they see fit, and whatever gets dreamed up simply passes no matter what. There are no stop-gap measure like in most presidencies during this first 2 years, and they're taking full advantage. It's unchecked, runaway spending on a grand scale.
Plus I don't like him. :p |
It's funny, because Democrats have 59 votes, not enough to block a filibuster. It's also funny because they really haven't done as much stuff as they could have (and should have, in my opinion).
And now you're just back tracking :p |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Ahhh yes... one of my favorite myths. Clinton being responsible for balancing the budget. :stongue:
A president is never responsible for balancing a budget, Congress is. And the Republican controlled Congress rejected 6 strait budget proposals from Clinton, until he finally submitted a 7th that lined up with their budget parameters. Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress also forced Clinton to sign the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 which cut taxes. At that point, the economy took off jumping 4.4% in '97, 4.5% in '98, and 4.8% in '99. The balanced budget occurred AFTER 1997.
Contrast that with today. We've had a Democrat controlled Congress since 2006, and they are rubber stamping any and every budget that Obama wants... and look where we are. When Bush's tax cuts took effect in 2004, more tax revenue went to the government than ever before. That's how it works; if the rate is lower, but you have more employed people paying into the system, the overall receipts will be higher.
Also following Bush's tax cuts: From 2004 to 2007, the federal deficit was reduced 60% from $412 billion to $162 billion. Even with 9/11, Katrina, and 2 wars, we had the strongest overall economic productivity rate in 40 years. The facts are the facts. Just think about it rationally... does confiscatory taxation lead to economic growth? Of course not! |
:stongue: |
|
|
| we_R_DNA |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
They read like you're just skimming through semi-connected notions without any deep analysis whatsoever.
You're right: I am extremely prejudiced against nonsensical pseudo-mystical gibberish and its many acolytes. |
|
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
does confiscatory taxation lead to economic growth? Of course not! |
No, but it does lead to us not being in the pocket of China as much.
I hope you like Chinese food Kevin. |
|
|
| Danny Ocean |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
I hope you like Chinese food Kevin. |
Obesity would not be so high in North America, if you held the diet the Chinese do. |
|
|
|
|
