Seems fairly straightforward...

[Exterminator]

and our over-spending had NOTHING to do with it?  c'mon

It absolutely did...spending on things like tax cuts for the wealthy, corporate welfare, unnecessary wars, etc...not spending on things that enrich the lives of the citizens.

Interestingly, this over-spending and raising the debt ceiling every year was never an issue for any of you before Obama became the president.

[Henry Hawk]

It absolutely did...spending on things like tax cuts for the wealthy, corporate welfare, unnecessary wars, etc...not spending on things that enrich the lives of the citizens.

Interestingly, this over-spending and raising the debt ceiling every year was never an issue for any of you before Obama became the president.

Bullshit, conservatives was bitching at Bush and the rino's when that was going on.........Obama and the dems has taken it to a new level.....and it has GOT to stop...it is not the governments role to "enrich" the lives of its citizens...

and taxes are being raised on those who own business'....the amount of money that the federal gov will generate by these taxes is NOT going to stimulate the economy...

raising taxes will NOT increase the federal revenue.........history has already proved this...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2012/10/15/do-tax-cuts-increase-government-revenue/

[Exterminator]

Bullshit, conservatives was bitching at Bush and the rino's when that was going on...

That's an outright lie.

it is not the governments role to "enrich" the lives of its citizens...

Actually, that is any government's only role.

and taxes are being raised on those who own business'....the amount of money that the federal gov will generate by these taxes is NOT going to stimulate the economy...

As has already been pointed out to you previously, the federal government will spend that money and yes, government spending stimulates the economy every bit as much as your or my spending and a whole lot more than that money does any good sitting in rich people's bank accounts doing nothing.

raising taxes will NOT increase the federal revenue.........history has already proved this...

I wish I had a dollar for every time I or someone else on this forum has used actual data to prove to you that this is a fallacy yet still, despite being buried in real facts and numbers over and over again, you continue to repeat it as though it is true.

[Henry Hawk]

Amazing!   

This is why it is pointless to debate on here.........

When are you going to realize, that I am right!     and YOU are wrong..

I told NO lie
It is NOT the governments role to spend money they don't have and drive us into bankruptsy..they don't have it, yet they still want to spend it.

and I have, time and time again, refuted your lame arguements, with incredible sources.....
http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/07/16/the-dangerous-myth-about-the-bill-clinton-tax-increase/
yet you and the other libbies on here are bind to accept the truth...

[Exterminator]

This is why it is pointless to debate on here.........

When are you going to realize, that I am right!     and YOU are wrong..

I told NO lie
It is NOT the governments role to spend money they don't have and drive us into bankruptsy..they don't have it, yet they still want to spend it.

and I have, time and time again, refuted your lame arguements, with incredible sources.....
http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/07/16/the-dangerous-myth-about-the-bill-clinton-tax-increase/
yet you and the other libbies on here are bind to accept the truth...

The truth is in the numbers, not is an opinion piece in a magazine published by the people who benefit from the tax cuts that you support for them...to your own detriment.  I guess the part about them brainwashing you with their media outlets was a little more than you could understand; huh?

[Henry Hawk]

The truth is in the numbers, not is an opinion piece in a magazine published by the people who benefit from the tax cuts that you support for them...to your own detriment.  I guess the part about them brainwashing you with their media outlets was a little more than you could understand; huh?

CBO is supposed to be a "nonpartisan" agency, but the party in power appoints the director, so it still has a political connection to whichever party controls Congress....and it is always biased towards the party in power....and you know it.

[Exterminator]

So you're saying that when Obama got into office the new director of the CBO went back and changed the data back to 1965?  Ridiculous... 

[Henry Hawk]

So you're saying that when Obama got into office the new director of the CBO went back and changed the data back to 1965?  Ridiculous... 

I'm just saying they can be as creative as they want to be, to make things "seem" they way the need it to.

[Exterminator]

I'm just saying they can be as creative as they want to be, to make things "seem" they way the need it to.

There is no "seem" to it; the numbers are what they are.

[me]

Ya know HH I hope the conservatives back off and give Obama his way.  I realize it would hurt things but then and only then will some people begin to see the light, maybe.  Of course the blame game will continue because it will be the conservatives fault Obama's way didn't work since liberals are experts at twisting things. 

[Exterminator]

Ya know HH I hope the conservatives back off and give Obama his way.  I realize it would hurt things but then and only then will some people begin to see the light, maybe.

And when it hurts nothing, will you come back here, apologize and admit that you don't have a clue about...well...pretty much anything?  My guess is that no, you'll continue to delude yourself about how wise and insightful you are. 

[me]

And when it hurts nothing, will you come back here, apologize and admit that you don't have a clue about...well...pretty much anything?  My guess is that no, you'll continue to delude yourself about how wise and insightful you are. 

Probably do the same thing you would if it doesn't work, keep saying, "well, it takes time you know". 

[The Troll]

And when it hurts nothing, will you come back here, apologize and admit that you don't have a clue about...well...pretty much anything?  My guess is that no, you'll continue to delude yourself about how wise and insightful you are. 

  The way Scab Hawk and SCAB "ME" talks you would think they live under a rock in a deep, deep cave.   

  We know the Republicans tried for 4 years to kill Obama and this country with "Our main job is to see that Obama is a one term president".    Well that didn't work. 

  Then they bring out this ***** Millionaire who said that 47% of American people want to live off of everybody else and were lazy and shiftless.  Going to give vouchers for Medicare, put Social Security in the Stock Market and do away with Medicade and give the upper 2% another tax break, Well that didn't work. 

  The Republicans are going to drive us over the cliff trying to save the Super Rich from a tax raise,     That isn't going to work.   

                                      We got them by the balls.   

[Exterminator]

Probably do the same thing you would if it doesn't work, keep saying, "well, it takes time you know".

I don't think we're the ones who've been saying that it takes time.  The tax cuts we're discussing have been in place for more than 10 years and the associated increase in jobs and/or federal revenues was never realized.  When, exactly, are we supposed to see these wonderous results?

[Henry Hawk]

I don't think we're the ones who've been saying that it takes time.  The tax cuts we're discussing have been in place for more than 10 years and the associated increase in jobs and/or federal revenues was never realized.  When, exactly, are we supposed to see these wonderous results?

My GOD!  Unemploymente was at 4.5% after the Bush Tax cuts were put into place!

According to official IRS data, the top 1% of income earners paid $84 billion more in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000 before the Bush tax cuts were passed, 23% more.  The share of total federal income taxes paid by the top 1% rose from 37% in 2000, before the Bush tax cuts, to 40% in 2007, after the tax cuts.

In contrast, the bottom half of income earners paid $6 billion less in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000, a decline of 16%.  The share of federal income taxes paid by the bottom 50% declined from 3.9% in 2000 to 2.9% in 2007.

The Bush tax cuts also included a doubling of the child tax credit from $500 per child to $1,000 per child.  Because of that, and the 33% cut in the bottom tax rate, nearly 8 million more people dropped off the federal income tax rolls entirely, paying zero federal income taxes.  Indeed, under the Bush tax cuts, the bottom 40% of all income earners not only paid no federal income taxes, as a group on net.  By 2009, they were being paid cash by the IRS equal to 10% of all federal income taxes.