Trump's tax plan: Massive cuts for the 1% will usher 'era of dynastic wealth'

Why do you keep trying to argue against a claim that Obama was singularly responsible for the FY2008 and FY2009 spending increases and HUGE explosion in the deficit from the last Republican of $161B to the Democrats $1,400 when no claim has been made.

Are you denying the Democrats took control of the Congress and the budget, majority control of the government in 2007 ? You are in denial of that?

Are you denying that two years after they took that control the deficit had hit that $1,400B?

Please show me how uninformed I am with facts, not by trying to hide behind your bromides and platitudes when you can't post an intelligent response.

 

Why is that? Why does one follow the other? You think the purpose of the government is to satisfy their vengence over someone who decides they don't want to lose money in a venture and will no longer need their employment? Why does that give them a right to vote money out of my pocket?

 

Sorry but you can't change the fact that you thought Obama was President in 2008 by now pretending that the defecit under Bush was the fault of the Congress.

And no I never claimed that the defecit did not hit record levels during the early Obama Administration. Of course if you actually bothere to do any research you would learn that the defecit was caused more by decreased tax revenues than from spending. Try looking up the actual data and report back. I would post the link for you but since you appear never to look at them it might be better for you to do the research yourself.

 

Sorry but your ignorance of the budget process, that presidents control the budgets, and history do not change the fact that FY2008 and FY2009 were Democrat budgets as I have already documented.

And again your fallacious statements trying to put words in my mouth, quote where I claimed Obama was President in 2008. If you claim it again you will be called on your lie.

Are you denying the Democrats took control of the Congress and the budget, majority control of the government in 2007 ? You are in denial of that?

Are you denying that two years after they took that control the deficit had hit that $1,400B?

Please show me how uninformed I am with facts, not by trying to hide behind your bromides and platitudes when you can't post an intelligent response.

Here let me educate you again.

"In FY2009, Congress did not complete work by September 30, 2008. President Bush did sign some appropriations bills and a continuing resolution to keep the government running into President Obama’s first term, yet a Democrat controlled Congress purposely held off on the big spending portions of the appropriations bills until Obama took office. They did so for the purposes of jacking up spending. President Obama signed the final FY2009 spending bills on March 11, 2009.

The Democrats purposely held off on the appropriations process because they hoped they could come into 2009 with a new Democrat-friendly Congress and a President who would sign bloated spending bills. Remember, President Obama was in the Senate when these bills were crafted and he was part of this process to craft bloated spending bills. CQ reported that “in delaying the nine remaining bills until 2009, Democrats gambled that they would come out of the November 2008 elections with bigger majorities in both chambers and a Democrat in the White House who would support more funding for domestic programs.” And they did.
The Truth about President Obama's Skyrocketing Spending


"Unlike last year, when Bush forced Democrats to accept lower spending figures, this year could prove more difficult for the president. The fiscal year begins Oct. 1, less than four months before he leaves office.

"He doesn't have us over a barrel this year, because either a President Clinton or a President Obama will have to deal with us next year," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "We are not going to be held hostage to the unreasonableness of this president."

Much of the president's plan has little chance of passage, lawmakers and budget experts say. Nearly $200 billion in Medicare and Medicaid savings need congressional approval, which Democrats are unlikely to provide. "Dead on arrival," vowed Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-02-03-bush-budget_N.htm

The Democrats BRAGGED about that which you deny.

ROFL you are claiming the 9% increase in spending in 2008 and the 18% on top of that in 2009 had nothing to do with creating the massive $1,400B deficit just two years after the last Bush/Republican deficit of that paltry $161B. And it is their job to account for such things in their budgeting and institute policies to mitigate those revenues losses and get us back into growth. Bush and the Republicans succeeded, Obama and the Democrats failed.

 

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary

Defecits were due to decreased revenue caused by Bush tax cuts coupled with increased spending need to help the country recover from the Bush recession. Without the Bush tax cuts revenues would have been much higher. And obviously the Bush tax cuts did not prevent the Bush recession. So tell us again just what the country gained from his tax cuts.

 

Again I ask how Obama can be singularly responsible for the 2008 spending increases when he didn't become President till 2009. Or are you having problems understanding what you wrote.

Now if you actually want to understand the 2008 defecit you should look up how much tax revenues went down thanks to a combination of the Bush tax cuts and the Bush recession. Now the defecit in 2009 was a combination of reduced revenues and the spending increases necessary to recover from the Bush recession.

 

Good for you. I hope Anecdotal Evidence Inc. continues its unverifiable plans to help its possibly existing workers. The rest of us will just have to continue our unhealthy reliance upon known and credible sources. Trump isn't even President so far, so I'm not sure I'd spend that raise yet

 

Revenues soared, especially capital gains tax revenues at the LOWER 15% rate, and spending growth was restrained and the deficit was lowered to a measly $161B as even you chart shows.

Then as demonstrated above the Democrats gained budget control starting of FY2008 and we see the results. A 9% spending increase and then an 18% spending increase taking the deficit to $1,400B.

 

No such claim made, try addressing what I did post like how the DEMOCRATS took control of the budget in 2007, why do you claim the DEMOCRATS passed Bush budgets when you have been shown otherwise?

Why do you claim taxes were cut in 2008? They were cut in 2003 and phased in in 2004 and revenues exploded and the deficit was lowered from the recession high of $400B to $161B.

 

Yes and real (inflation and population growthe adjusted) revenues collected from 2004 to 2007 were greater than the Clinton boom years of 1997 - 2000.