Question For Republicans

So you can't refute the facts as I posted them. Who has their nose up somewhere where it stinks?

The Republicans balanced the budget in the late 1990's, they had it heading there again in 2007. So what is the premise of you claim they will explode it like the Democrats did in 2008 and 2009 and 2010 and 2011 and 2012 and 2013 and 2014?

- - - Updated - - -

I am talking about the several years under the various rates now please answer the question

Did we collect more CapGain tax revenues at the Clinton 29% rate or the Gingrich/Kasich 20% rate or the Bush 15% rate?

 

Excellent post . . .

 

There was credible Intel the Uncle Bin crew was going to attack the U.S. going back to 1998.

 

Yes, presidents are politicians and yes they work under the law as interpreted at the time.

There has been a gigantic change since then. Today, we use overt and public means of killing people in other countries with which we are not at war, including killing citizens of those countries and writing it off as "collateral damage".

Under Clinton, the right wing went crazy when he took out the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory which appeared to be an AQ weapons facility making WMDs.

Then, the right wing goes crazy because we didn't take a shot at an individual terrorist.

Then, just for the heck of it, you throw in that the Bush economic crash was caused by Dems! Yet, since then the GOP has worked hard to prevent the safeguards that would prevent the same theft of the wealth of US citizens from happening again.


So, now you want to rewrite history by accepting part, but not all the FACTS - and by ignoring how America works.

 

YES! That kind of redacted document is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about!

Even though it has been declassified, the redacted information IS STILL CLASSIFIED...and that's the kind of info I still cannot disclose.

And I won't - not even if I have my own PRIVATE E-MAIL SERVER!!!! <smirk>

Not even if the president e-mails me using a pseudonym e-mail address!!!! <double smirk>

 

I am not going to argue with you because I know your selective picking of dates to support your premise from many previous posts.

Let's just say that we'll see in 2-4 years where the debt and the deficit is and then we'll see whether the coming Trump tax cuts exploded it or not. And then you won;t be able to blame it on the Dems, as you always do.

I am, btw, not of the opinion that the Dems are innocent when it comes to the deficit. Both parties are guilty, one by taxing and spending, the other by not taxing and still spending. So, you can't accuse me of partisan leaning when it comes to the budget. I do, however, call out the hypocrisy of the "deficits don't matter" party when I see it.

 

That's why we didn't nominate and elect another "establishment" politician.

Both sides play partisan games for partisan gains!


I'm not attempting to rewrite history -- I just stated the FACT that dims' claims that the "Bush Recession" was purely a Republican debacle of their own creation is FALSE!

Sometimes roots grow too deep for a shallow analysis.

 

I'm giving you all the dates, all the ranges. The worst Bush/Republican deficit was $400B in 2004 and as then the tax rate cuts phase in was accelerated, it was not due to be fully implimented until 2006, and tax revenues soared the the deficit fell to that paltry $161B. What are you attempting to deny here?

Then the Democrats took budgetary control and in two years the deficit soared to $1,400B. What are you attempting to deny here.

Then the Democrats kept the deficit over $1,000B for the next 4 years and never even came close to the WORST Republican deficit.

Those are the HISTORICAL FACTS. And you can't refute them can you.

You keep claiming the Republicans were worst when it came to fiscal management and deficits WELL PROVE IT THEN. If you think my numbers are wrong or cherry picked then PROVE IT. You conjecture is not proof of anything.

We don't need to wait and see to compared Republican versus Democrat budget policy, we have the historical record. If Trump follows the previous Republican policies we may see surpluses again if he follows Democrats the deficits will explode again.

Which do you prefer?

What are the Republicans guilty of they balanced the budget and produced surpluses and had it heading that way again before the Democrats took back control, what are you blaming them for?

 

I don't believe we elected someone who has a policy direction.

Without that, I really don't know what "anti-establishment" could possibly be good for.

He's demonstrated a decision making process that is based on "gut", affected significantly by the popularity of statements with those who come to rallies. Nobody can suggest that is a successful policy process.

America is serious business. We absolutely need experts who known how the various parts of our government work. Simply rejecting all those who do that as "establishment" is irresponsible.

We can't have a functioning military with a CiC who says our generals need to be fired. They ARE the establishment - the experts. Firing them is not an improvement. If they are all in agreement, it means something that can't just be a justification for firing.

The same goes in other areas.

There are differences of opinion among the experts - that is, within the establishment. I'm not suggesting that there is no room for change - there obviously is. But, it's not rational to reject our military generals as well as the "generals" in other areas simply because they have been dedicated to making their part of America the best it can be.

 

No one is willing to do both. Instead we'll likely get tax cuts and budget increases in different areas. Just we had tax increases (though small) and budget increases. This simply won't work. Neither is anyone willing to discuss where the cuts should go and raising taxes.

 

I agree. I was slightly disappointed to see Trump cutting top income taxes while raising lower income taxes. He'll most likely beef up the military while cutting social programs, too. I do have to say I don't mind the move so long as he keeps his promise to add jobs. Real jobs, not service.

 

So far...he'd screw the middle class and increase the debt

Wonderful

 

In that action Trump is a typical Republican, it's what should expected currently. I think bringing back production jobs is sticky because no matter how low corporate taxes are, China, India, et al still lead in cheap labor. And it's just not feasible for a China wage to earn a living in the US so the American worker shouldn't be competing with that low a wage.

 

It's true. If he is going to take the old Republican route, then he needs to lower corporate taxes by a considerable amount and even allowing some forbearance of tax liabilities. Better yet, he should just lower corporate rates then close the loopholes. Make them pay, but at a reasonable rate. We'd also be wise not to bring unions back. Most companies who have unions are fleeing or going under.

 

Before liberals took over our public education system, they use to teach that in our schools.

 

Unions served their purpose long before they were corrupted with money, we should absolve them. However, we shouldn't undo their work to the point where an American worker's wage is based on the market demands in lieu of Chinese labor being pennies on the dollar.

 

Australia should demand a refund. They paid for access and consideration and now won't get it. They were ripped off!

 

Did it matter when the repubs ran the House and Senate?

The only Republicans who give a rat's ass about the debt are Conservatives, the GOP leadership like McConnell could give a crap.

 

What better way to attack the middle class and depress wages than to kill unions...right?

- - - Updated - - -

All you're doing is excusing in advance when the current Republicans increase the debt like they always did in the past.

The whole "debt panic" thing is a scam and always has been

 

I understand your points completely, and they are valid.

However, I am willing to give Trump time to surround himself with the best PERSONNEL for particular jobs.

Notice I didn't say "...the best Asian woman for job A...the best Hispanic man for job B...the best Black transgender for job C..."

Sound familiar?

As for Trump's blather about "I know more than the Generals - believe me..." -- anyone would have to agree that's utter nonsense. I wasn't too thrilled about that either, but that's just Trump being Trump, so I blew it off.

Having just retired four years ago, I spent a full four years under BOBO as CinC. It was NOT a good four years - and that is an understatement.

During my career, I personally knew a few General Officers and worked directly for a three-star (Lieutenant General) while in the Pentagon and then later I worked for him indirectly at the NSA when he was a full four-star General. (He called me by my first name...and I damn sure called him "Sir"!)

I understand how the commissioned and General Officer thing works. They are bound by their oath to NOT speak out in contradiction to the CinC - ever! Not even in private conversations! That's a fact; they can and likely WILL be fired if they do! It's called "Relief for Cause"...and it's a career-ender!

Generals toe the line - and that's the bottom line! I can tell you with absolute certainty that the VAST majority of all General Officers in all branches did NOT approve of the way Obama shackled them to his leftist agenda regarding the war-fighting effort...but they were stuck.

They were demoralized because their troops were demoralized. As a Senior Leader myself, it was a constant struggle to keep morale as high as possible because we had near-ZERO confidence that our President had our backs. As we say - "He didn't have our six".

We did NOT have an effective Commander in Chief. It is honestly one of the reasons I retired when I did at 25 years rather than close out at a full 30. It was still a tough decision, because after that long...it was my entire life!

Anyway - the point of this screed is that I DO have a good feeling that President Trump WILL be an effective CinC. I'm still in touch with colleagues who are still serving - and to a person, they ALL say that just in the past few weeks, things have already gotten better as far as their confidence levels. Morale is already up!

That might seem premature...but to an old Soldier - it means a helluva lot!

As I keep saying: "We voted his a$$ in...and if he fails, we'll damn sure vote his a$$ back out!"

You have to admit, that statement is, itself, more than the libs were willing to commit to.

They witnessed four years of no tangible positive accomplishments for the betterment of our Nation as a whole -- and they voted his ineffective a$$ right back in!

'Nuff said!

 

What he picked was the best alt-right racist as his chief strategist. Suggesting that something more like America should have been easily possible without actually polluting our whiteness.

As for the military, I totally agree with you on the strength of our generals.

And, you don't have to go further to let me know we undoubtedly disagree on rational use of military force.

 

I have posted many times that the explosion of the national debt was necessary to save the American financial system from the Bush disaster. There was no choice despite what the uneducated choose to believe.

 

This will help you understand the budget defecits run by each of our presidents

.http://www.investopedia.com/ask/ans...esidents-have-run-largest-budget-deficits.asp

Note that while Obama was the worst in history Bush was second worst followed by Regan and Bush Senior. Don't understand where you got your " facts". Perhaps you might care to post your sources.

- - - Updated - - -

This will help you understand the budget defecits run by each of our presidents

.http://www.investopedia.com/ask/ans...esidents-have-run-largest-budget-deficits.asp

Note that while Obama was the worst in history Bush was second worst followed by Regan and Bush Senior. Don't understand where you got your " facts". Perhaps you might care to post your sources.

 

yup

and if Trump is the kind of CEO I hope he is, he will never utter a word about the mess left for him by a Democrat POTUS

He'll get to work and in 4 years, his body of work will judge him, not his speeches which is all that we had with Obama

 

Bush wrongly increased the national debt by an increase of 4 trillion dollars on his watch. Obama raised that by another 10 OR MORE trillion dollars. As wrong as Bush was to do what he did, Obama was vastly more wrong.