(08-11-2016 07:50 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 10:59 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 01:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 01:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  His tax plan makes a lot of sense for ordinary people.

I would be very happy under his plan.

But aren't you opposed to huge deficits? That's what the right has been telling us for years anyway.

Im for cutting spending significantly

Sent from my VS980 4G using CSNbbs mobile app

Trump has advocated HUGE spending initiatives AND is advocating these huge tax cuts. Where does the money come from? Trump knows tax cuts sell, but he's not giving you any reasonable explanation of how he'll do that, spend significantly more money on infrastructure, build an unneeded wall, etc... If Trump's tax plan came with any sort of serious plan to actually pay for it I'd take it seriously...without it, it's just political posturing on an issue he knows he can score points.

Quite simple.

Cut all foreign aid.
Cut all welfare spending.
Cut Obamacare
Scale back military spending.

(08-11-2016 08:05 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 07:50 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 10:59 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 01:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 01:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  His tax plan makes a lot of sense for ordinary people.

I would be very happy under his plan.

But aren't you opposed to huge deficits? That's what the right has been telling us for years anyway.

Im for cutting spending significantly

Sent from my VS980 4G using CSNbbs mobile app

Trump has advocated HUGE spending initiatives AND is advocating these huge tax cuts. Where does the money come from? Trump knows tax cuts sell, but he's not giving you any reasonable explanation of how he'll do that, spend significantly more money on infrastructure, build an unneeded wall, etc... If Trump's tax plan came with any sort of serious plan to actually pay for it I'd take it seriously...without it, it's just political posturing on an issue he knows he can score points.

Not that I disagree but did you ask the same questions as Obama ran up the national debt? I find it amusing that when a republican puts forth a proposal dems ask how he will pay for it. Especially tax cuts. Suggest a tax cut and dems always are about how to pay for allowing taxpayers to keep more of their money. Propose free healthcare, free college, free phones, etc... and it's fine debt be damned but never ever propose that a taxpayer keep more of what he earned.

As a result of spending increases under Bush, the tax cuts under Bush and most importantly the enormous recession the president walked into office facing a trillion+ dollar deficit. This includes the fact that in a huge recession government programs already on the books get used to a greater extent. The president also contributed to the first year with his stimulus package, but most economic study's I've seen say the stimulus helped soften the recession. I guess we can argue whether the stimulus was needed but I think it was.

It's notable that as the economy has gotten better the president has reduced the deficit year after year and he really hasn't added huge new spending programs to the federal bureaucracy. I think the numbers are pretty clear that the vast majority of the deficits he ran were a result of a weakened economy that forced more people on social welfare programs and caused revenue shortfalls for the federal government.

Lastly, I'd say it's telling that as the economy has gotten better he's stayed committed to deficit reduction. That was not a priority of the prior administration where we saw deficits increase throughout his presidency. Clinton or Trump will both inherit a much better economic situation that the president did with deficits in a much better position than they were when the President took office. My hope is both would be responsible with that position.

(08-11-2016 07:50 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 10:59 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 01:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 01:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  His tax plan makes a lot of sense for ordinary people.

I would be very happy under his plan.

But aren't you opposed to huge deficits? That's what the right has been telling us for years anyway.

Im for cutting spending significantly

Sent from my VS980 4G using CSNbbs mobile app

Trump has advocated HUGE spending initiatives AND is advocating these huge tax cuts. Where does the money come from? Trump knows tax cuts sell, but he's not giving you any reasonable explanation of how he'll do that, spend significantly more money on infrastructure, build an unneeded wall, etc... If Trump's tax plan came with any sort of serious plan to actually pay for it I'd take it seriously...without it, it's just political posturing on an issue he knows he can score points.

So you suddenly give a sh*t where the money comes from after Obama ran up $10 trillion plus in debt?

The answer is that it comes from taxes, generated when business flourish due to removal of all of the obstacles the liberals put in place that impede business. Study history.

(08-11-2016 08:20 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 07:50 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 10:59 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 01:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 01:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  His tax plan makes a lot of sense for ordinary people.

I would be very happy under his plan.

But aren't you opposed to huge deficits? That's what the right has been telling us for years anyway.

Im for cutting spending significantly

Sent from my VS980 4G using CSNbbs mobile app

Trump has advocated HUGE spending initiatives AND is advocating these huge tax cuts. Where does the money come from? Trump knows tax cuts sell, but he's not giving you any reasonable explanation of how he'll do that, spend significantly more money on infrastructure, build an unneeded wall, etc... If Trump's tax plan came with any sort of serious plan to actually pay for it I'd take it seriously...without it, it's just political posturing on an issue he knows he can score points.

Quite simple.

Cut all foreign aid.
Cut all welfare spending.
Cut Obamacare
Scale back military spending.

I'd disagree with most of that, though I'd be fine with scaling back military spending, but the larger point is that Trump has not proposed any of that. He's suggested ending Obamacare but replacing it with "something better.." Who knows what the cost of that is?

If Trump explained that he'd pay for it with something like that I'd at least be able to accept his tax plan as plausible even if I disagreed with the cost of it.

(08-11-2016 03:54 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Mexico was picked to win the war. In retrospect, they weren't as tough as Santa Anna pumped him up to be. However, we won a lot of battles while being drastically outnumbered.

And Spain was a coming out party. Europe started to respect us.

A standing army in 1861 would have probably seen many deflections to the South, considering how many Southerners serve in the military.

1812 was a disaster. Nice save near the end that taught the British we were here to stay.

the southerns would have defected anyway, would have had military experience anyway. every increase in said army figures was an advantage for the north.

no mexico was not "picked" to win the war. as for 1812, a freaking weather event did more to help us than our own military in a war the UK fought with one hand tied behind their back.

(08-11-2016 08:28 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  I'd disagree with most of that, though I'd be fine with scaling back military spending, but the larger point is that Trump has not proposed any of that. He's suggested ending Obamacare but replacing it with "something better.." Who knows what the cost of that is?

If Trump explained that he'd pay for it with something like that I'd at least be able to accept his tax plan as plausible even if I disagreed with the cost of it.

So you haven't bothered reading any of his policies? Cuz they're right here.... https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/h...are-reform

Quote:Modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines. As long as the plan purchased complies with state requirements, any vendor ought to be able to offer insurance in any state. By allowing full competition in this market, insurance costs will go down and consumer satisfaction will go up.

Quote:Require price transparency from all healthcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals. Individuals should be able to shop to find the best prices for procedures, exams or any other medical-related procedure.

Block-grant Medicaid to the states. Nearly every state already offers benefits beyond what is required in the current Medicaid structure. The state governments know their people best and can manage the administration of Medicaid far better without federal overhead. States will have the incentives to seek out and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse to preserve our precious resources.
Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products. Congress will need the courage to step away from the special interests and do what is right for America. Though the pharmaceutical industry is in the private sector, drug companies provide a public service. Allowing consumers access to imported, safe and dependable drugs from overseas will bring more options to consumers.

In theory, private insurance shouldn't cost anything to the feds other than staff to perform audits and things like that.. Allow them to compete across state lines. That is one "no-brainer" that would increase supply AND competition. Liberals need to get this idea out of their head that a change to a gov't policy must mean that a different gov't solution must take it's place. I believe in quite the opposite really. Kill the gov't policy and let the market take over. Yes, there needs to be SOME regulation but some of our health policy is absolutely ridiculous.

Yes, CUT ALL welfare except for the disabled, elderly and children. Period.

(08-11-2016 08:23 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  As a result of spending increases under Bush,

Just stop... 1st of all, we aren't talking about Bush here. 2nd, if you've read and paid attention to conservatives on this forum much you'd realize that MANY of us have acknowledged Bush's abject failures.

(08-11-2016 08:23 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 08:05 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 07:50 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 10:59 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 01:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  But aren't you opposed to huge deficits? That's what the right has been telling us for years anyway.

Im for cutting spending significantly

Sent from my VS980 4G using CSNbbs mobile app

Trump has advocated HUGE spending initiatives AND is advocating these huge tax cuts. Where does the money come from? Trump knows tax cuts sell, but he's not giving you any reasonable explanation of how he'll do that, spend significantly more money on infrastructure, build an unneeded wall, etc... If Trump's tax plan came with any sort of serious plan to actually pay for it I'd take it seriously...without it, it's just political posturing on an issue he knows he can score points.

Not that I disagree but did you ask the same questions as Obama ran up the national debt? I find it amusing that when a republican puts forth a proposal dems ask how he will pay for it. Especially tax cuts. Suggest a tax cut and dems always are about how to pay for allowing taxpayers to keep more of their money. Propose free healthcare, free college, free phones, etc... and it's fine debt be damned but never ever propose that a taxpayer keep more of what he earned.

As a result of spending increases under Bush, the tax cuts under Bush and most importantly the enormous recession the president walked into office facing a trillion+ dollar deficit. This includes the fact that in a huge recession government programs already on the books get used to a greater extent. The president also contributed to the first year with his stimulus package, but most economic study's I've seen say the stimulus helped soften the recession. I guess we can argue whether the stimulus was needed but I think it was.

It's notable that as the economy has gotten better the president has reduced the deficit year after year and he really hasn't added huge new spending programs to the federal bureaucracy. I think the numbers are pretty clear that the vast majority of the deficits he ran were a result of a weakened economy that forced more people on social welfare programs and caused revenue shortfalls for the federal government.

Lastly, I'd say it's telling that as the economy has gotten better he's stayed committed to deficit reduction. That was not a priority of the prior administration where we saw deficits increase throughout his presidency. Clinton or Trump will both inherit a much better economic situation that the president did with deficits in a much better position than they were when the President took office. My hope is both would be responsible with that position.

The national debt has doubled under Obama. Hasn't added huge spending programs? Obamacare isn't a huge spending program?

Good luck Democrats when you try to tax the hell out of the poorest generation in history - millennials. They won't have any money to give you. Not sure if racism will be an issue for the most tolerant generation ever, millennials. How will Dems attempt to divide the country over race and class warfare in the 2040's?

(08-11-2016 08:23 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  That was not a priority of the prior administration where we saw deficits increase throughout his presidency.

That's false.

(08-11-2016 09:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 08:23 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  That was not a priority of the prior administration where we saw deficits increase throughout his presidency.

That's false.

Yeah...but I wouldn't brag too much about it.

Quote:FY 2009 - $1.632 trillion. (Bush's deficit without the impact of the Economic Stimulus Act).
FY 2008 - $1.017 trillion.
FY 2007 - $501 billion.
FY 2006 - $574 billion.
FY 2005 - $554 billion.
FY 2004 - $596 billion.
FY 2003 - $555 billion.
FY 2002 - $421 billion.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtandd...sident.htm

(08-11-2016 09:37 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 09:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 08:23 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  That was not a priority of the prior administration where we saw deficits increase throughout his presidency.

That's false.

Yeah...but I wouldn't brag too much about it.

Quote:FY 2009 - $1.632 trillion. (Bush's deficit without the impact of the Economic Stimulus Act).
FY 2008 - $1.017 trillion.
FY 2007 - $501 billion.
FY 2006 - $574 billion.
FY 2005 - $554 billion.
FY 2004 - $596 billion.
FY 2003 - $555 billion.
FY 2002 - $421 billion.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtandd...sident.htm

What were so special about those two years that the amount of spending skyrocketed? Oh yea, the libturds took control of congress.

(08-11-2016 09:51 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 09:37 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 09:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 08:23 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  That was not a priority of the prior administration where we saw deficits increase throughout his presidency.

That's false.

Yeah...but I wouldn't brag too much about it.

Quote:FY 2009 - $1.632 trillion. (Bush's deficit without the impact of the Economic Stimulus Act).
FY 2008 - $1.017 trillion.
FY 2007 - $501 billion.
FY 2006 - $574 billion.
FY 2005 - $554 billion.
FY 2004 - $596 billion.
FY 2003 - $555 billion.
FY 2002 - $421 billion.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtandd...sident.htm

What were so special about those two years that the amount of spending skyrocketed? Oh yea, the libturds took control of congress.

Or more accurately... revenues did not reach projections because the economy collapsed (on top of the 500 billion dollar deficits we already had because of huge spending issues in Bush admin) and more people had to go on government services as a result.

(08-10-2016 11:38 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  I guess with the media avoiding Trumps speech on taxes and job creation, they are admitting that its a good plan and need to deflect to utter nonsense.

With their silence on the matter, I will take it that his plan is superior to Hillary's in their eyes.

YOU GOT THAT RIGHT ON THE NAIL HEAD. ! ! !

Bull shat talks.... real words/actions walks. The MSM addresses what they want to and ignore the rest. They are supposed to be informing the public. However, they just obfuscate things that can help the economy and keep the people uninformed of the real need.

ONLY IDIOTS AND THOSE DETERMINED TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO BELIEVE HRC AND THE MSM. LIARS AND OBFUSCATE MESSAGES BY BOTH ,

WHY ARE THE ELECTORATE SO ABSOLUTELY STUPID AND ACCEPTING OF THIS CRAP ? ? ? ?

I see them driving up and down the streets/hwys every damn day...texting and talking and not paying attention to things that WILL affect them.

(08-11-2016 10:09 AM)tigertom Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 11:38 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  I guess with the media avoiding Trumps speech on taxes and job creation, they are admitting that its a good plan and need to deflect to utter nonsense.

With their silence on the matter, I will take it that his plan is superior to Hillary's in their eyes.

YOU GOT THAT RIGHT ON THE NAIL HEAD. ! ! !

Bull shat talks.... real words/actions walks. The MSM addresses what they want to and ignore the rest. They are supposed to be informing the public. However, they just obfuscate things that can help the economy and keep the people uninformed of the real need.

ONLY IDIOTS AND THOSE DETERMINED TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO BELIEVE HRC AND THE MSM. LIARS AND OBFUSCATE MESSAGES BY BOTH ,

WHY ARE THE ELECTORATE SO ABSOLUTELY STUPID AND ACCEPTING OF THIS CRAP ? ? ? ?

I see them driving up and down the streets/hwys every damn day...texting and talking and not paying attention to things that WILL affect them.

Somebody apparently needs a quiet space for a while.

(08-11-2016 09:37 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 09:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 08:23 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  That was not a priority of the prior administration where we saw deficits increase throughout his presidency.

That's false.

Yeah...but I wouldn't brag too much about it.

Quote:FY 2009 - $1.632 trillion. (Bush's deficit without the impact of the Economic Stimulus Act).
FY 2008 - $1.017 trillion.
FY 2007 - $501 billion.
FY 2006 - $574 billion.
FY 2005 - $554 billion.
FY 2004 - $596 billion.
FY 2003 - $555 billion.
FY 2002 - $421 billion.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtandd...sident.htm

Not bragging, just pointing out lies.

By the way, here is the academic background of the economic "expert" who wrote that article, "She received an M.S. in Management from the Sloan School of Business at M.I.T. in 1987, an M.S. in Social Planning from Boston College in 1978 and a B.A. in Psychology from the University of Rochester in 1976." from http://useconomy.about.com/bio/Kimberly-...22286.htm. Note anything missing? Like maybe a degree in economics?

And per the Obama administration, here are the actual numbers for 2000-09:
Year Revenues Expenditures Surplus (Deficit)
2000 2,025,191 1,788,950 236,241
2001 1,991,082 1,862,846 128,236
2002 1,853,136 2,010,894 -157,758
2003 1,782,314 2,159,899 -377,585
2004 1,880,114 2,292,841 -412,727
2005 2,153,611 2,471,957 -318,346
2006 2,406,869 2,655,050 -248,181
2007 2,567,985 2,728,686 -160,701
2008 2,523,991 2,982,544 -458,553
2009 2,104,989 3,517,677 -1,412,688

First, let's use the Obama numbers: Average annual deficit under Bush = $380 billion (which is too much). Average annual deficit under Obama = $868 billion. So Obama more than doubled Bush's deficits, which were themselves unprecedentedly large.
But let's take her numbers for the sake of argument: Average annual deficit under Bush = $665 billion (which is too much). Average annual deficit under Obama = $1,083 billion. So Obama is still nearly double Bush.

Republicans held both houses for the 2000-01 budgets, which produced surpluses, and for the 2004-07 budgets, which produced a decline in the deficit from $400 billion to $160 billion. And that's the period when the "Bush tax cuts" kicked in full force.

And 2009 wasn't Bush's budget. The Bush budget had a deficit of around $400 billion, same as 2008. The blowup in the budget came after Obama took over. The budget referenced for 2009 was signed by Obama, not Bush.

I think I know what that "expert" is doing with the numbers, but I really wish she'd show her work so we can all know for sure.

I've used that site before and I seem to recall that they explain the calcs somewhere. Bottom line, no, it's not some ruse to make Bush look bad...so just stop.

And you also know that the effects of budgets on the deficit aren't instantaneous like you seem to be implying.

(08-11-2016 10:26 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I've used that site before and I seem to recall that they explain the calcs somewhere. Bottom line, no, it's not some ruse to make Bush look bad...so just stop.
And you also know that the effects of budgets on the deficit aren't instantaneous like you seem to be implying.

I think she's playing games with the war costs. Whether that is a ruse to make Bush look bad or not is a matter of opinion.

I'm not implying that they are instantaneous at all. Don't put words in my mouth, okay? For instance, 2004 deficit was larger than 2003, probably some carryover there. But 2004-06 is a clear enough trend that at least some of it is current stuff. And the "Bush tax cuts" that supposedly caused all the deficits were kicking in full force then, as the deficits were going down.

(08-11-2016 10:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 09:37 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 09:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 08:23 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  That was not a priority of the prior administration where we saw deficits increase throughout his presidency.

That's false.

Yeah...but I wouldn't brag too much about it.

Quote:FY 2009 - $1.632 trillion. (Bush's deficit without the impact of the Economic Stimulus Act).
FY 2008 - $1.017 trillion.
FY 2007 - $501 billion.
FY 2006 - $574 billion.
FY 2005 - $554 billion.
FY 2004 - $596 billion.
FY 2003 - $555 billion.
FY 2002 - $421 billion.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtandd...sident.htm

Not bragging, just pointing out lies.

By the way, here is the academic background of the economic "expert" who wrote that article, "She received an M.S. in Management from the Sloan School of Business at M.I.T. in 1987, an M.S. in Social Planning from Boston College in 1978 and a B.A. in Psychology from the University of Rochester in 1976." from http://useconomy.about.com/bio/Kimberly-...22286.htm. Note anything missing? Like maybe a degree in economics?

And per the Obama administration, here are the actual numbers for 2000-09:
Year Revenues Expenditures Surplus (Deficit)
2000 2,025,191 1,788,950 236,241
2001 1,991,082 1,862,846 128,236
2002 1,853,136 2,010,894 -157,758
2003 1,782,314 2,159,899 -377,585
2004 1,880,114 2,292,841 -412,727
2005 2,153,611 2,471,957 -318,346
2006 2,406,869 2,655,050 -248,181
2007 2,567,985 2,728,686 -160,701
2008 2,523,991 2,982,544 -458,553
2009 2,104,989 3,517,677 -1,412,688

But let's take her numbers for the sake of argument. Average annual deficit under Bush = $380 billion (which is too much). Average annual deficit under Obama = $868 billion. So Obama more than doubled Bush's deficits, which were themselves unprecedentedly large.

Republicans held both houses for the 2000-01 budgets, which produced surpluses, and for the 2004-07 budgets, which produced a decline in the deficit from $400 billion to $160 billion. And that's the period when the "Bush tax cuts" kicked in full force.

And 2009 wasn't Bush's budget. The Bush budget had a deficit of around $400 billion, same as 2008. The blowup in the budget came after Obama took over. The budget referenced for 2009 was signed by Obama, not Bush.

I think I know what that "expert" is doing with the numbers, but I really wish she'd show her work so we can all know for sure.