Is there a trickle up policy?

[Hlleonard]

He has ALREADY surpassed both of them combined.

What is laughable is the idiocy in your post.

SAD.

Later,

Geo

--
He has passed neither of them.

Ronald Reagan increased the debt by 218%
George Bush11 increased the debt by 86%

I'm sure you can do the math on Mr Obama's contribution.

These are these numbers I found, maybe you can find different ones and post them.

[GeoFisher]

--
He has passed neither of them.

Ronald Reagan increased the debt by 218%
George Bush11 increased the debt by 86%

I'm sure you can do the math on Mr Obama's contribution.

These are these numbers I found, maybe you can find different ones and post them.

Again, you didn't provide numbers, you provided percentages.

So here are some numbers:

Reagan Years and Bush Years

1980's 907.7
2001 (a2) 5,807
2002 (a3) 6,228
2003 (a) 6,783
2004 (a) 7,379
2005 (a4) 7,933
2006 (a5) 8,507
2007 (a6) 9,008
2008 (a7) 10,025

So, using Math, I get 907.7 + (10,025 - 5807) for 5.125 Trillion TOTAL for bush and Reagan combined.

Now for Obama.......GAWD ****, those are some big numbers.........you sure you can count that high? And this is only through 2014.

2009 (a8) 11,910
2010 (a9) 13,562
2011 (a10) 14,790
2012 (a11) 16,066
2013 ~16,738
2014 ~17,152

17,152 - 11,910 = 5.252 Trillion.. So based on the NUMBERS I have provided, pulled from THIS LINK, Obama has surpassed Reagan and Bush Combined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa..._United_States

Note: the initial year for Reagan is all that was reported, but I will give you the assumption that he raised it by 2.2trillion dollars...........even at that rate, if you add the 1.5 trillion/ear that is expected for 2015 and 2016, Obama STILL beats the two Republicans combined by 1 trillion........

You like all other liberals love to spin and crunch **** to look the way you want, yea, the percentages you provided, taken from the democrat talking points do paint a different picture, but statistics my friend are about numbers, and you can paint that how ever the hell you want.

Bottom Line, I have provided the corresponding data from a reliable source to BACK my argument. Something the left is rare to do.

Good day, I'm done arguing with you tonight. Pick a number, and I will be glad to school your ass again tomorrow.

Later,

Geo

[Hlleonard]

Again, you didn't provide numbers, you provided percentages.

So here are some numbers:

Reagan Years and Bush Years

1980's 907.7
2001 (a2) 5,807
2002 (a3) 6,228
2003 (a) 6,783
2004 (a) 7,379
2005 (a4) 7,933
2006 (a5) 8,507
2007 (a6) 9,008
2008 (a7) 10,025

So, using Math, I get 907.7 + (10,025 - 5807) for 5.125 Trillion TOTAL for bush and Reagan combined.

Now for Obama.......GAWD ****, those are some big numbers.........you sure you can count that high? And this is only through 2014.

2009 (a8) 11,910
2010 (a9) 13,562
2011 (a10) 14,790
2012 (a11) 16,066
2013 ~16,738
2014 ~17,152

17,152 - 11,910 = 5.252 Trillion.. So based on the NUMBERS I have provided, pulled from THIS LINK, Obama has surpassed Reagan and Bush Combined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa..._United_States

Note: the initial year for Reagan is all that was reported, but I will give you the assumption that he raised it by 2.2trillion dollars...........even at that rate, if you add the 1.5 trillion/ear that is expected for 2015 and 2016, Obama STILL beats the two Republicans combined by 1 trillion........

You like all other liberals love to spin and crunch **** to look the way you want, yea, the percentages you provided, taken from the democrat talking points do paint a different picture, but statistics my friend are about numbers, and you can paint that how ever the hell you want.

Bottom Line, I have provided the corresponding data from a reliable source to BACK my argument. Something the left is rare to do.

Good day, I'm done arguing with you tonight. Pick a number, and I will be glad to school your ass again tomorrow.

Later,

Geo

--
If you go back and use the correct number to do the math the numbers you seem to be enchanted with are actually around 6 and a half trillion instead of the 5.2 you posted... The .907 trillion you used for your calculation is the debt that Mr. Carter left Mr. Reagan.... So in your head it is ok to double or triple the debt as long as the numbers themselves are smaller?... I guess that is good right wing economics.

Before you get into schooling somebody it might be a good idea to at least start at the right place in the text book.... You have a good day sir.

[GeoFisher]

--
If you go back and use the correct number to do the math the numbers you seem to be enchanted with are actually around 6 and a half trillion instead of the 5.2 you posted... The .907 trillion you used for your calculation is the debt that Mr. Carter left Mr. Reagan.... So in your head it is ok to double or triple the debt as long as the numbers themselves are smaller?... I guess that is good right wing economics.

Before you get into schooling somebody it might be a good idea to at least start at the right place in the text book.... You have a good day sir.

I guess you failed to read this part:

Note: the initial year for Reagan is all that was reported, but I will give you the assumption that he raised it by 2.2trillion dollars...........even at that rate, if you add the 1.5 trillion/ear that is expected for 2015 and 2016, Obama STILL beats the two Republicans combined by 1 trillion........

I stated WHAT you already pointed out..........and gave Reagan all the debt for the 1980's by giving the assumption that he raised it 2.2 trillion dollars.......

Even at that rate, what the hell don't you understand about the fact that Obama still raised the debt more than Bush and Reagan combined......

You will NEVER, EVER get it.

[Hlleonard]

I guess you failed to read this part:



I stated WHAT you already pointed out..........and gave Reagan all the debt for the 1980's by giving the assumption that he raised it 2.2 trillion dollars.......

Even at that rate, what the hell don't you understand about the fact that Obama still raised the debt more than Bush and Reagan combined......

You will NEVER, EVER get it.

--
lol... I guess I won't.

[roadrunner]

--
Hmmm.... It does seem to me the 27 good years you speak of since Mr Carter resulted in a debt of under a trillion dollars ballooning to a debt of over 10 trillion and a constantly shrinking middle class... If the slow erosion of the middle class seems to you like "pretty damned good economically" then we seem to have a very different view of what "pretty damned good economically" means... I agree we had a good 27 year run but the result of not paying for all the government that was added starting ...let me see... must have been around 1980, so the rich could get richer at the cost of the rest of was anything but good economics... The republican agenda over that time started a down slide that I don't believe we can ever overcome.

It is ironic this is exactly what everyone thought when Carter was in office we had a hostage crises for over 465 days interest rates were 18% unemployment through the roof America was in terrible shape but there was a man named Reagan who believed in the American people and had a positive vision was a great communicator (with out teleprompter). He knew the problem could not be fixed by the government because it was the problem. We elected him President and Iran released the hostages, Russia was afraid of him after he spent a ton of money building up the military and his efforts and money ended the cold war. He turned America around in no time and has gone down as one of the greatest president of modern times.

It is sad that Obama the nations first African American president is so incompetent and will be the worst president of modern times. the only two thing he has accomplished is he went on a tour and apologized because America was exceptional he has changed that we are not exceptional any more and he gave us Obama care one of the worst programs I have ever seen.

You do not believe we can overcome this mess (of course you try to pin it on the republicans) when it is Obama problem again he thinks you solve the problem by making the government larger and taxing the hell out of the folks who make the jobs history has proved time and time again that big government is the problem not the answer. I do share your fear that there is not another Reagan that come in and undo 8 years of Obama. FYI 26 yeas before Obama national debt rose 9.5 trillion dollars five years of Obama debt rose 7 trillion dollars. and that is a fact Jack.

Even after this great history lesson that Reagan gave us the liberals still think that the government is the answer.

[Hlleonard]

It is ironic this is exactly what everyone thought when Carter was in office we had a hostage crises for over 465 days interest rates were 18% unemployment through the roof America was in terrible shape but there was a man named Reagan who believed in the American people and had a positive vision was a great communicator (with out teleprompter). He knew the problem could not be fixed by the government because it was the problem. We elected him President and Iran released the hostages, Russia was afraid of him after he spent a ton of money building up the military and his efforts and money ended the cold war. He turned America around in no time and has gone down as one of the greatest president of modern times.

It is sad that Obama the nations first African American president is so incompetent and will be the worst president of modern times. the only two thing he has accomplished is he went on a tour and apologized because America was exceptional he has changed that we are not exceptional any more and he gave us Obama care one of the worst programs I have ever seen.

You do not believe we can overcome this mess (of course you try to pin it on the republicans) when it is Obama problem again he thinks you solve the problem by making the government larger and taxing the hell out of the folks who make the jobs history has proved time and time again that big government is the problem not the answer. I do share your fear that there is not another Reagan that come in and undo 8 years of Obama. FYI 26 yeas before Obama national debt rose 9.5 trillion dollars five years of Obama debt rose 7 trillion dollars. and that is a fact Jack.

Even after this great history lesson that Reagan gave us the liberals still think that the government is the answer.

--
Hmmm. not exactly sure what all that rant was about... You could be right about this president being the worst president in history, he has to surpass Bush11 first, but do you believe we could stand another Reagan... lets see..debt increased 218% under Mr Reagan in the eighties... now if we assume Mr Obama doubles the debt ( As Bush11 did), thats 20 trillion and we elect another Reagan and this new Mr Reagan performs like the first one, that would result in a debt of lets see... somewhere between 40 and 50 trillion dollars?.. If my calculator is broken maybe you can do the math and show us where this new Jesus will be our savior... I personally believe most of the right wingnuts here have a tough time seeing the real world because they have their head so far up their Mohammad's backside they haven't seen daylight since he started this ruination of our great country in the 80's.

[SLP]

I am intrigued with the idea of a consumption tax. The rich would pay far more because they of course spend much more. No tax on food of course and don't double tax, so no tax on used items. I think it would give many that need it tax breaks, and give more opportunities for those who want to save and invest the opportunity of doing so because it would encourage saving. That was the one idea I really liked that Huckabee was pushing when he ran for president of few years back. I forget how many billions I think it was said at the time that would not be sucked out of the economy by eliminating the expenses that filing traditional taxes currently cost Americans and American companies. It also would basically eliminate the need for the IRS ( well except that they now are supposed to enforce Obama Care), but that is another topic for discussion.

[Hlleonard]

I am intrigued with the idea of a consumption tax. The rich would pay far more because they of course spend much more. No tax on food of course and don't double tax, so no tax on used items. I think it would give many that need it tax breaks, and give more opportunities for those who want to save and invest the opportunity of doing so because it would encourage saving. That was the one idea I really liked that Huckabee was pushing when he ran for president of few years back. I forget how many billions I think it was said at the time that would not be sucked out of the economy by eliminating the expenses that filing traditional taxes currently cost Americans and American companies. It also would basically eliminate the need for the IRS ( well except that they now are supposed to enforce Obama Care), but that is another topic for discussion.

--
I suspect somewhere in the future we will see some form of that... The idea makes more noise every year,Personally I believe it will hurt us as a country and further shift the tax burden to the folks who can least afford it... In the middle part of the last century the top tax rate was 70 or 80 percent I think (not going to look that up), now it is 38% or something like that and it seems the end result is a massive debt we likely will never be able to get out from under.... It seems the more we reduce the taxes on the rich the worse shape we get in.

[SLP]

--
I suspect somewhere in the future we will see some form of that... The idea makes more noise every year,Personally I believe it will hurt us as a country and further shift the tax burden to the folks who can least afford it... In the middle part of the last century the top tax rate was 70 or 80 percent I think (not going to look that up), now it is 38% or something like that and it seems the end result is a massive debt we likely will never be able to get out from under.... It seems the more we reduce the taxes on the rich the worse shape we get in.

The rate were much higher, but it was not as different as at first glace or one might think. When the rates were that high the tax code also had many more tax breaks and loopholes available in order for people to be able lower their actual rate just because the rates were so high. It basically was a real mess and much more inefficient. Once the rates were lowered the tax code was also simplified and many of those loopholes were done away with. Really either a consumption tax or a very simple flat tax is the way to go. Having high rates and then having to have all kinds of available breaks and loopholes for people to take just to lower those rates is very inefficient and costly.

[Hlleonard]

The rate were much higher, but it was not as different as at first glace or one might think. When the rates were that high the tax code also had many more tax breaks and loopholes available in order for people to be able lower their actual rate just because the rates were so high. It basically was a real mess and much more inefficient. Once the rates were lowered the tax code was also simplified and many of those loopholes were done away with. Really either a consumption tax or a very simple flat tax is the way to go. Having high rates and then having to have all kinds of available breaks and loopholes for people to take just to lower those rates is very inefficient and costly.

--
There are a lot of folks who believe a flat tax would be the answer to our budgetary problems... It just seems to me if half the people, as Mr. Romney says, pay no taxes, then our system must be saying these folks are in a financial condition where they can't afford to pay taxes, if thats the case then I don't understand how charging them taxes on goods and services won't result either in a greater hardship on them or cause them to need more government assistance and at the same time we are reducing taxes on the upper class so that looks to me like a disaster in the making.

[SLP]

--
There are a lot of folks who believe a flat tax would be the answer to our budgetary problems... It just seems to me if half the people, as Mr. Romney says, pay no taxes, then our system must be saying these folks are in a financial condition where they can't afford to pay taxes, if thats the case then I don't understand how charging them taxes on goods and services won't result either in a greater hardship on them or cause them to need more government assistance and at the same time we are reducing taxes on the upper class so that looks to me like a disaster in the making.

It has been years since I researched this so I don't remember specific numbers, but with Huckabe's proposal people would receive a rebate each year so in effect for the most part those who pay nothing now would continue to do so. Also as I said no food or any used items would be taxed. So where now if a person purchases a used car and pay tax on it with his "fair tax" proposal they wouldn't pay a tax on it since the original consumption tax was already previously paid on it. It would really help the poor if done right. The current system where the poor can not deduct their rent while homeowners are able to their mortgage interest isn't very "fair" now is it?