"Trickle Down" Failed. What is the new Right Wing approach for next election?

Dungheap said:
Reagan:

fredgraph.png



Clinton:

fredgraph.png



Same thing, really.
Click to expand...

LMAO... typical Democrat... why do you always try and confuse the proles by using the percent of GDP? Does that lower our national debt? Does it change what we owe? No, it simply means the growth of the economy was faster than the growth of the debt. It doesn't change the fact that they both raised the debt burden by $1.6 T.

Inflation adjusted Clintons is not as bad, but then again he was the benefactor of a booming tech/internet/telecom economy. Whereas Reagan had to dig out of Carters mess.
 
Darla said:
Wait a minute, is your statement about the bush tax cuts, or Obama's extension?
Click to expand...

Do you think it suddenly changes?

The problem with the left is they like to get themselves confused with the per capita amounts. That convinces them the bulk of the dollars are going to the wealthy. They forget the 'wealthy' account for about 2-5% (depending on varying definitions) of the populace.
 
super duper.

how did a non existent dot com bring down the budget deficit years before it happened?
 
evince said:
super duper.

how did a non existent dot com bring down the budget deficit years before it happened?
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? What years are you referring to?

Also, the boom in the 90's was tech, telecom, biotech and internet. Not just dot.coms
 
Superfreak said:
Do you think it suddenly changes?

The problem with the left is they like to get themselves confused with the per capita amounts. That convinces them the bulk of the dollars are going to the wealthy. They forget the 'wealthy' account for about 2-5% (depending on varying definitions) of the populace.
Click to expand...

So, the original claim is about Bush's first tax cut package, and not Obama's extension?

And yeah, since your article clearly states the Senate was still attempting to hash out their own version of the bill, you bet it could have changed.
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... typical Democrat... why do you always try and confuse the proles by using the percent of GDP? Does that lower our national debt? Does it change what we owe? No, it simply means the growth of the economy was faster than the growth of the debt. It doesn't change the fact that they both raised the debt burden by $1.6 T.

Inflation adjusted Clintons is not as bad, but then again he was the benefactor of a booming tech/internet/telecom economy. Whereas Reagan had to dig out of Carters mess.
Click to expand...


Fun with nominal figures!


Here's another chart that I like that shows that Regan and Clinton were exactly the same on the debt front. LOL:

fredgraph.png
 
evince said:
that was the dot com bubble dude
Click to expand...

The bubble at the end certainly was led by the dot.com's... especially in late 98-March 2000. But it still created a lot of cap gains that in turn created revenue into 2000. In 2001, we began to see the cap losses affecting revenue as a result of the dot.com bust.

But again, the economic boom in the 90's was telecom, tech, biotech and internet driven. It wasn't just dot.coms
 
Dungheap said:
Fun with nominal figures!


Here's another chart that I like that shows that Regan and Clinton were exactly the same on the debt front. LOL:

fredgraph.png
Click to expand...


Again you show as a percentage of GDP. Which again doesn't compare their debt on an apples to apples basis... the two economies were vastly different. No matter how you try to cut it... Clinton raised our national debt by $1.6T while he was in office.
 
Darla said:
I think I found your slight of hand SF...I knew there was one:

"According to the new report from the Congressional Budget Office, about two-thirds of the benefits from the tax cuts, enacted in 2001 and 2003, went to households in the top fifth of earnings, with an average income of $203,740."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/13/u...ort-finds-tax-cuts-heavily-favor-wealthy.html
Click to expand...

So by changing up the wording, oh 80% went to the bottom 98%, you are (perhaps) able to make a true statement that deceives.

The fact is 2/3rds of the 2001 cuts went to those making over 200k, and I bet that is where the "if you don't make over 200 (or he might have raised it to 250) a year, you won't see a tax increase" came from during Obama's campaign. And then of course followed the argument made mostly by morons that if you were making over 200k you couldn't afford a tax hike because you were barely scraping by and leave it to a lefty moron to say that when the average income is 33k, someone making over 200k was doing well.

If memory serves...
 
Dungheap said:
The hagiography of Ronald Reagan by a self-procalimed deficit hawk really cracks me up.
Click to expand...

LMAO... given I have already stated that one of the things I didn't like about Reagan was the amount of debt he created, it cracks me up that you try the nonsense above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top