You know that the deficit has gone done every year under Obama, right?

We can run a deficit when necessary, but it's not a long term solution.

Posted by bad_luck on 9/27/2016 10:41:00 PM (view original):
You know that the deficit has gone done every year under Obama, right?

We can run a deficit when necessary, but it's not a long term solution.

While most U.S. presidents over the past 75 years have run budget deficits for many if not all of their years in office, there are four whose deficits have far exceeded those of their peers. The four presidents who have run the largest deficits are, in order from most to least, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

There are two ways to look at the U.S. budget deficit when determining which president has run the largest deficit. The first is to look at each president's term or terms in office, total the deficits run over the course of their four or eight years and base your conclusions on those numbers. According to this method, Barack Obama's budget is projected to run a deficit of $7.3 trillion over his eight years, making him the president with the largest budget deficit. George W. Bush is second, with a deficit of $3.29 trillion over his eight years. Ronald Reagan is third at $1.412 trillion deficit in eight years and George H.W. Bush comes in fourth with a $1.03 trillion deficit in his single term.

Read more: Which United States Presidents have run the largest budget deficits? | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/030515/which-united-states-presidents-have-run-largest-budget-deficits.asp#ixzz4LVzoc7am
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

Sorry, not interested in your cut/pastes.

Posted by bad_luck on 9/27/2016 10:56:00 PM (view original):
Sorry, not interested in your cut/pastes.

Good answer for ducking an argument when proven wrong. AGAIN!

Posted by bheid408 on 9/27/2016 11:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 9/27/2016 10:56:00 PM (view original):
Sorry, not interested in your cut/pastes.

Good answer for ducking an argument when proven wrong. AGAIN!

You didn't make an argument. You copied a page from Wikipedia.

You were the one arguing. Please try to follow along.

Interesting how BL doesn't know that you can CUT SPENDING to balance a budget too. Some of these government programs intended to re-distribute wealth to the lazy and unmotivated could be cut. In fact, we would save a lot of money by just jettisoning the illegal immigrants that are currently bellying up to the liberal government troughs. Then we cut Welfare programs and limit unemployment and VOILA, you've cut a ****-ton of spending and can lower taxes.

Start cutting the military budget and you've got something cooking.

Not to mention you start cutting programs like that and crime goes up.


Stop starting wars is another good start.

Posted by The Taint on 9/28/2016 12:50:00 AM (view original):
Not to mention you start cutting programs like that and crime goes up.


Stop starting wars is another good start.

Oh, so if some people don't get government handouts, they'll resort to crime??!?!

WHY DON'T THEY JUST ******* GET A JOB OR LEARN A TRADE?!?!

Posted by toddcommish on 9/28/2016 1:06:00 AM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 9/28/2016 12:50:00 AM (view original):
Not to mention you start cutting programs like that and crime goes up.


Stop starting wars is another good start.

Oh, so if some people don't get government handouts, they'll resort to crime??!?!

WHY DON'T THEY JUST ******* GET A JOB OR LEARN A TRADE?!?!

I can't believe I have to say this....

BL is right

1) Flat tax plans shift the tax burden to the poor. This is true. Most of the poor in this country pay 10 - 15% taxes. While it is true that many super rich do in fact play close to zero in taxes, most do pay taxes. So if a guy who is in the highest bracket paying 40%, knocks that down to say 25% through deductions, if he reported $10 million, he paid $2.5 million. Assuming a 15% flat tax, he then pays what? $1.5 million. And - don't forget - he still has deductions. Maybe he knocks the rate down to 8%. Then he pays $800K. Yeah, flat taxes are not realistic.

2) I was going to address bheid408 but he didn't even read through the cut-and-paste article he threw up on this thread. If you read through all of it it contradicts everything he was trying to say. So I won't. At least DougOut's Rush posts are consistent with DougOut's views.

3) People who say 'Let them just get a job' ignores that there's few opportunities there for - ALL - poor people to advance. The solution long term isn't to cut hardship benefits. Its to increase education spending. And spending on research and development. And public construction. Those expenditures increase jobs. And if there are open jobs, people will take them.

4) The Taint is right. Where is starting wars making us safer or doing anything to help our way of life? My problem isn't so much what we did in the 2000s. Rather it was how we did it. When Reagan and Bush 1 employed troops, it generally had a direct purpose. A mission. I still don't know what the missions were for two wars we fought, but I do know it cost half a year's federal budget.

If Trump is paying nothing now, wouldn't he pay more with a flat tax? Let's just say "No" as BL stated. How about sales tax only? Trump buys a plane. He pay 20% tax(just picking a number). Is he paying more than ZERO now?

NO. HE WOULD WRITE IT OFF AS A DRUMPF UNIVERSITY EXPENSE

PURCHASE WOULD STILL BE TAXED!!!

Posted by sjpoker on 9/28/2016 5:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 9/28/2016 1:06:00 AM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 9/28/2016 12:50:00 AM (view original):
Not to mention you start cutting programs like that and crime goes up.


Stop starting wars is another good start.

Oh, so if some people don't get government handouts, they'll resort to crime??!?!

WHY DON'T THEY JUST ******* GET A JOB OR LEARN A TRADE?!?!

I can't believe I have to say this....

BL is right

1) Flat tax plans shift the tax burden to the poor. This is true. Most of the poor in this country pay 10 - 15% taxes. While it is true that many super rich do in fact play close to zero in taxes, most do pay taxes. So if a guy who is in the highest bracket paying 40%, knocks that down to say 25% through deductions, if he reported $10 million, he paid $2.5 million. Assuming a 15% flat tax, he then pays what? $1.5 million. And - don't forget - he still has deductions. Maybe he knocks the rate down to 8%. Then he pays $800K. Yeah, flat taxes are not realistic.

2) I was going to address bheid408 but he didn't even read through the cut-and-paste article he threw up on this thread. If you read through all of it it contradicts everything he was trying to say. So I won't. At least DougOut's Rush posts are consistent with DougOut's views.

3) People who say 'Let them just get a job' ignores that there's few opportunities there for - ALL - poor people to advance. The solution long term isn't to cut hardship benefits. Its to increase education spending. And spending on research and development. And public construction. Those expenditures increase jobs. And if there are open jobs, people will take them.

4) The Taint is right. Where is starting wars making us safer or doing anything to help our way of life? My problem isn't so much what we did in the 2000s. Rather it was how we did it. When Reagan and Bush 1 employed troops, it generally had a direct purpose. A mission. I still don't know what the missions were for two wars we fought, but I do know it cost half a year's federal budget.

The mission for Afghanistan was to remove the government that supported and harbored the terrorist group responsible for 9/11 and to obliterate Al Qaeda, which had become the biggest threat to America's security.

The mission for Iraq was . . . umm . . . . uh . . . .