Then why did you reply? GO sit on that fencepost, you'd like it. You assume victory because your old and closed minded and when cornered, you speak out your ass with verbal shit spray. My statement on my views of taxation was clear and instead of challenging that with why you think my "opinion", yes a fucking OPINION, you diarrhea all over the forum. And you speak to me as if I cannot debate. Get a life you old skin sack.
Red Clinton did NOT balance the budget by raising taxes alone. It was the trememdous growth of revenue due to GDP increase. CBO and Fed studies at the time were clear the tax increase were a minor drag on the economy. The growth of the economy during the internet boom provided the revenue.US economic growth during the 90's was the spark for the whole world. Also the control of spending increases due to the agreements between Clinton & Gingrich helped. Finally Alan Greenspan's continuing Volker's monetary policy provided a stable background for business to plan and take advantage of the growth potential. This data is confirmed by CBO and Treasury analysis. Facts are facts no matter how you try to spin them. You can argue which side deserves credit but the seeds of the surplus are clear. It was not any ONE thing but the COMBINATION of good policies and good fortune.
The opinion I stated was towards Tiger's comment not yours dipshit. Again, learn to read. You have serious reading comprehension issues right now. It is my "opinion" that Obama's policy of raising taxes on the rich without, (as I responded to NCTiger) , reform (taxes & policy), spending cuts, a balanced budged and a fucking garuntee to reduce the debt. It is an absolute fact that taxes alone will not pay off the debt.
No one has suggested that budgets are not complex, only that budget surpluses can and have been used to pay down the debt. Surpluses are good because we aren't borrowing money as we have done ever since, and we have resources available to pay down the debt. Then cite your sources. Don't be like the ranter and insist that we believe his pronouncements. The point I was making to the other guy is that Clinton posted surpluses which were used to pay down the debt. Do you dispute that? And when Bush enacted his tax cuts, those surpluses disappeared. Right?
That is not what this started as. I said that taxes alone would not pay off the debt. Raising taxes on the rich are ALL Obama talks about. Its a stupid policy as it is just a talking point for people like you to latch onto. You attacked my statement of "You couldn't tax enough to pay down the debt." It is true and everyone here knows it. Our growth rate is in the 1% points. Clinton had a much higher growth rate when he enacted his increase in taxes. We also did not have over 8% unemployment. So unless you want to REALLY engage in this conversation and stop playing the semantics game, man the fuck up. A semantic dispute is a disagreement that arises if the parties involved disagree about whether a particular claim is true, not because they disagree on material facts, but rather because they disagree on the definitions of a word (or several words) essential to formulating the claim at issue. It is also sometimes held that when a semantic dispute arises, the focus of the debate should switch from the original thesis to the meaning of the terms of which there are different definitions (understandings, concepts, etc.). I have clearly outlined my meaning of the sentence in dispute. Yes, I claim it as fact. I feel no need to prove this any further as it has never been done nor has a tax only policy every been enacted under any president. Obama is actually traveling the country spewing this shit. Tax the rich, its only fair. ?????? If you disagree so much as to end the debate, please, show me where a tax increase policy alone will pay down the debt.
Again not a singularity. Bushes tax cuts were NOT the sole sourse of the disapperance of the surplus. Remember a tiny little event called 9/11 and the economic down turn that resulted. The slowing of the economy was a major factor in the reduction of surplus and re appearance of deficit. Also the Iraq and Afgan wars, Medi care drug coverage changes and loss of spending discipline has at least an equal impact. BTW I am not defending any of these in this instance but citing evidence that there was more than tax cuts to the the end of surplus under W.
Incorrect. In Post 242 you said "You couldn't tax enough to pay down the debt. It is impossible." I had to point out all of the flaws in that rash statement. We did exactly that in the 1990's. You can't speak for everyone. I have demonstrated that it is not only possible but has been done and recently. I know the facts are disturbing to your argument, but quit whining and try to make a valid point. Well, I think that about sums it up. Checkmate.
