Reagan on the Debt Ceiling

Superfreak said:
Actually, it was the DEM led Congress that pushed it into the stratosphere. Bush signed it to be sure and is also to blame, but Bush's $500B deficit is NOTHING compared to Obama's $1.5 Trillion per year deficit spending (that he plans to keep over $1 Trillion per year going forward in the foreseeable future)
Click to expand...

First, for FY07 and FY08, outlays were at or below the amounts that Bush requested in his budget proposals. Moreover, the year to year increases for FY07, 08 and 09 are in line with the year to year increases from FY03 through FY06. Pretending it was the Democrats that pushed spending higher is incorrect. Second, Bush's FY09 budget proposal resulted in a deficit of $1 Trillion so you're off by about 50% on Bush's deficit. Third, the deficit for FY12 under Obama's budget is reduced to below $1T from FY2013 onward.

Superfreak said:
While you are correct to say that cutting spending could help alleviate the deficit, it is not going to be enough on its own.... they HAVE to raise taxes if they continue spending. Which is why it is not a presumption to state such. You proclaimed Obama should have spent more which implies an even greater level of deficits than we already saw. Thus tax increases are the only way to pay for such spending given the FACT that we know the Dems (and Reps) have done little to NOTHING to curb spending.
Click to expand...

Which is why it's stupid to cut taxes without cutting spending first. Yet, every time a tax cut comes up without accompanying spending cuts, you support it nevertheless.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
First, for FY07 and FY08, outlays were at or below the amounts that Bush requested in his budget proposals. Moreover, the year to year increases for FY07, 08 and 09 are in line with the year to year increases from FY03 through FY06. Pretending it was the Democrats that pushed spending higher is incorrect. Second, Bush's FY09 budget proposal resulted in a deficit of $1 Trillion so you're off by about 50% on Bush's deficit. Third, the deficit for FY12 under Obama's budget is reduced to below $1T from FY2013 onward.
Click to expand...


Once again; what Governmental entity has the constitutional power to pass tax and spending bills? Yes it would be Congress.

Now what political party was in power in 2008 and 2009? Once again it was the Democrats.

I don't give a rats behind whether or not Bush presented a spending plan to the Democrat congress; what is pertinent is that the idiot hypocrites that infested the Congress happily passed every spending initiative sent to them and then some without one discussion about how to pay for it.

This idiot’s argument that it was all Bush defies common sense.

But to further compound the stupidity of Democrat partisan politics, these morons couldn't, or refused to, pass a budget the last year they controlled the house and dumped that off to Republicans whom they now demagogue.
 
Truth Detector said:
Once again; what Governmental entity has the constitutional power to pass tax and spending bills? Yes it would be Congress.

Now what political party was in power in 2008 and 2009? Once again it was the Democrats.

I don't give a rats behind whether or not Bush presented a spending plan to the Democrat congress; what is pertinent is that the idiot hypocrites that infested the Congress happily passed every spending initiative sent to them and then some without one discussion about how to pay for it.

This idiot’s argument that it was all Bush defies common sense.

But to further compound the stupidity of Democrat partisan politics, these morons couldn't, or refused to, pass a budget the last year they controlled the house and dumped that off to Republicans whom they now demagogue.
Click to expand...

Come back and post again when you can act more mature than your avatar.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
First, for FY07 and FY08, outlays were at or below the amounts that Bush requested in his budget proposals. Moreover, the year to year increases for FY07, 08 and 09 are in line with the year to year increases from FY03 through FY06. Pretending it was the Democrats that pushed spending higher is incorrect. Second, Bush's FY09 budget proposal resulted in a deficit of $1 Trillion so you're off by about 50% on Bush's deficit. Third, the deficit for FY12 under Obama's budget is reduced to below $1T from FY2013 onward.
Click to expand...

first, we are not talking about 2007 as that was done by Reps prior to the Dems taking over.

Second, as I stated, Bush is responsible as well for certain but as I stated, it was the DEM led CONGRESS that passed the budget for 2008 and 2009 that Bush signed. Bottom line.... those massive increases could not be laid solely at the feet of Bush or the Reps as the budget had to pass both DEM led houses of congress.

Finally, the increases in deficit spending soared in 2008 and then again in 2009, 2010 and it looks to continue in the Trillion plus camp. So you are incorrect to state that it was the same as 03-07 (yes you said '06, but bottom line is the Dems did not have control over 2007).


Which is why it's stupid to cut taxes without cutting spending first. Yet, every time a tax cut comes up without accompanying spending cuts, you support it nevertheless.
Click to expand...

We have been over your bullshit argument above many times. You consistently fail to state my position accurately. I am in favor of tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts during times of recession as it has a short term stimulus benefit to the economy. Or in the case of extending the Bush tax cuts, it doesn't INCREASE taxes during a recession. As I have stated before, they have no option but to increase taxes at this point, barring a complete restructuring of the tax code or a version of Reagan's 'cuts (where he lowered the brackets but also eliminated deductions and loopholes).

Yet regardless of how many times I state the above, you continue with your bullshit comments.
 
2010 13.87%
2009 18.80%
2008 11.29%
2007 5.89%
2006 7.24%
2005 7.50%
2004 8.78%
2003 8.91%
2002 7.25%

The above is the year over year increases in the debt. Do note the big jump in fiscal year 2008, 2009 and 2010
 
Notice Dung.... the trend was going DOWN until the DEMS took over Congress. Still horrid on Bush's part to be sure. But obviously not a glowing example of DEM fiscal responsibility either.
 
Superfreak said:
first, we are not talking about 2007 as that was done by Reps prior to the Dems taking over.
Click to expand...

Actually, like the Democrats in 2010, the Republicans in 2006 did not pass a budget.

Superfreak said:
Second, as I stated, Bush is responsible as well for certain but as I stated, it was the DEM led CONGRESS that passed the budget for 2008 and 2009 that Bush signed. Bottom line.... those massive increases could not be laid solely at the feet of Bush or the Reps as the budget had to pass both DEM led houses of congress.
Click to expand...

I'm not laying the budgets solely at the feet of Bush, I am simply pointing out that the Democrats did not ramp up spending in opposition to Bush but rather appropriated money at or below the levels requested by the President. You seemed to be suggesting that it was largely the responsibility of the Democrats, which just isn't the case.

Superfreak said:
Finally, the increases in deficit spending soared in 2008 and then again in 2009, 2010 and it looks to continue in the Trillion plus camp. So you are incorrect to state that it was the same as 03-07 (yes you said '06, but bottom line is the Dems did not have control over 2007).
Click to expand...

I said that spending increases were in in line with previous years, which they were. The deficit increased substantially more in 08 and onward as a result of lower revenues (historically low as a percentage of GDP, the last time they were so low was 1950), not exploding spending.


Superfreak said:
We have been over your bullshit argument above many times. You consistently fail to state my position accurately. I am in favor of tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts during times of recession as it has a short term stimulus benefit to the economy. Or in the case of extending the Bush tax cuts, it doesn't INCREASE taxes during a recession. As I have stated before, they have no option but to increase taxes at this point, barring a complete restructuring of the tax code or a version of Reagan's 'cuts (where he lowered the brackets but also eliminated deductions and loopholes).
Click to expand...

But the Bush tax cuts were not just going to be in place during a time of recession, unless you thought that we would be in a recession during the entire decade.

Superfreak said:
Yet regardless of how many times I state the above, you continue with your bullshit comments.
Click to expand...

Because what you say you support in the ideal world is one thing. What you actually supported in the real world is another.
 
Superfreak said:
Notice Dung.... the trend was going DOWN until the DEMS took over Congress. Still horrid on Bush's part to be sure. But obviously not a glowing example of DEM fiscal responsibility either.
Click to expand...

Without the two wars (bush), the patriot act (bush) and the and the two tax cuts (bush) the problem would be so much less as to not be a problem.

Additionaly, much of obama's spending has been an attempt to contain bush's economic disaster (bush), hardly run of the mill liberal spending.

Furthermore, Bush spent like a drunken sailor for 5 staright years, with a totaly compliant and complicit congress. Any attempt to ignore this and hold obama mostly responsible disingenuous at best.
 
Didn't you guys know, that everytime we don't agree to give more money and power to the politicians there will be total collapse. We've been close to total collapse how many times now in the past 30 years and all we have to show for it is this lousy debt, inflation and high unemployment. Just think how bad it would be if we didn't give them everything they want.
 
Rep. Joe Wilson R said:
Without the two wars (bush), the patriot act (bush) and the and the two tax cuts (bush) the problem would be so much less as to not be a problem.

Additionaly, much of obama's spending has been an attempt to contain bush's economic disaster (bush), hardly run of the mill liberal spending.

Furthermore, Bush spent like a drunken sailor for 5 staright years, with a totaly compliant and complicit congress. Any attempt to ignore this and hold obama mostly responsible disingenuous at best.
Click to expand...

yeah...it was only bush that was responsible for all those things....obama never voted or sought any of those things....no dems...nope...only bush

:rolleyes:
 
Dixie said:
That was when the national debt was less than $1 trillion, it's now over $14 trillion.
In the words of the great philosopher, Bobby Dylan; Things Have Changed!

Democrats and the liberal administration are trying to SCARE people into thinking we are going to "default" if we don't raise the debt ceiling. That is hogwash and the people should simply reject the argument on principle. Failure to raise the debt ceiling means we would have to cut federal spending in other areas in order to pay our debt obligations to avoid default. That's exactly what we would do, and should do.
Click to expand...

No, not raising the debt ceiling would lead to default. It's pretty obvious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top