Trump / FBI / Russians

So now the "Hollywood elites" are your friends?

 

Take comfort in your hypocrisy.

 

If you lined up the debt racked up in the first 2 years of each, you wouldn't be able to tell either.

 

The Blue Wave

 

The Red Tide

 

Even CNN is unable to resist the obvious Red Wave...
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/06/politics/donald-trump-presidency-supreme-court-economy/index.html

 

#FakeNews

 

Some people.....

 

Deficit spending happens to be the new reality. And it didn't start with 45.

Can you name the only president in the last 100 years who successfully balanced the budget and maintained a federal surplus of money for 2 years in a row?

President Dwight D. Eisenhower (34th president, 1953-1961)

In 1956, as a result of Eisenhower’s efforts, the USA had a 1.5 billion dollar surplus; that surplus grew to $2.2 billion the following year.

 

HaHa!

 

Didn't start with 45? That's exactly the point! You can't complain about Obama's ridiculous spending and then be ok when your boy is doing the same thing. For 8 years all we heard about was his crazy spending, don't hear as much about DJT's equally crazy spending.

Thanks for the history lesson, but you didn't outline what Eisenhower's efforts were.....they were ridiculously high taxation! The highest tax rate was over 90%, so sure if you're cool with being taxed like that, a surplus would be easy to achieve. Over taxation is the answer now Yank?

If you want to look at history, all you have to do is look at the Reagan tax cuts. Taxation was much higher in 1981 so he had much more fat to trim. He cut the corporate tax rate and had an across-the-board decrease in the marginal income tax rates by 25 percentage points, with the top rate falling from 70 to 50 percent and the bottom rate dropping from 14 to 11 percent. All of those tax cuts and he didn't cut spending (just shifted the cash towards the military). Well what happened....the deficit started growing rapidly and he had to turn around and pass the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 which undid a lot of those tax breaks. (he added more the 1% of GDP back in taxes the next year). Trump trimmed an already low (by historical comparison) tax rate and cut 0 spending...and the debt keeps rising.

I don't care what side of the aisle you are on, this country's debt will be its downfall if we don't get our heads out of our asses.

 

And there you go again. At no point did I ever say anything about deficits. You brought it up. You, Kylie.

Deflection is the way & the truth for the left aka you, Kylie. Do you ever actually read anyone's posts, other than to re-read your own posts x8 for your spelling errors?

The 1950's marked an era of tremendous prosperity for millions of working-class Americans. It was the first time that a so-called middle class emerged in this nation.

You also deliberately & conveniently (for your 'argument') state that tax rates under Ike were 90%+ whilst leaving out the crucial aspects of no AMT, the huge number of loopholes & deductions available in those days, etc., etc. That 90%+ income tax rate applied only to high income earners - - who would pile on the slew of deductions allowed under the law in the 1950's to drive the tax rate down to an effective 30-35% rate.

No one in the middle or working class was taxed at 90% - - you should really attempt a balanced & historically honest effort when you spout off.

And never mind the rest of us sheeple;
you could start by removing thine own noggin from thine own cranium.

 

At least he obviously made the effort to wipe as opposed to...

 

Bill Clinton left us with a surplus (of a lot of things lol), but the deficit was wiped out and the US Treasury had money in the bank. Taxation rates were not bad back then IMO- I didn't pay much due to good accountants.

 

^^^You didn't say anything about deficits? Sure I started the conversation, but you chimed in with your thoughts. So I replied to what you had to say. This stupid game you play of bending over to accuse me of deflecting is a very obvious deflection tactic of your own. If you're gonna pipe in with your thoughts, then don't act like you didn't want to be part of the conversation when I reply to you.

I didn't say anyone in the middle or working class paid 90% Yank. I said the highest tax rate was over 90%, this obviously does not include the middle or working class.

Look at the tax revenue in 1953 compared to now. Corporations accounted for 30.5% of total tax revenue in 1953. It accounts for 11.4% (2017). The burden has shifted heavily towards the individual taxpayer.

Eisenhower was also (much like myself) a staunch believer in a balanced budget. So the higher tax rates (especially the corporate rate) and a balanced budget is what led to the surplus.

Since I know you will say I am incorrect. Perhaps you would give your theory as to how he ended up with a surplus.

It seems pretty clear that if you hold Eisenhower up as an example of a good economic administration then you should have an issue with the current deficit spending by both parties.

 

What you fail to say, and you well know this Kylie, is that you utilize your failure to state the entire balanced perspective in order to imply 'facts.' You arrive at 'facts' due to your omission of the full story. It's part of the insane left's modus operandi. You have TDS, ergo anything goes from you.

You just say what fits your narrative Kylie. I responded to your skewed viewpoints. I never brought up the deficits, you did. So there you go.

How about Churchill? Want to redefine him to fit your narrative? Washington? Lincoln? Ghengis Khan?

Your approach is the same as those on Twitter. How apropos a name is that for thee.

 

It wasn't 100% Clinton, although he gets 100% of the credit thanks to LMS. Fair is fair, eh?

Decreasing rate of spending increases, increased revenues through higher marginal tax rates, tech boom increasing revenues to be taxed.

Also, Congressional action was much more impactful than Presidential, though joint action across party lines notable - - those were the days, eh?

Tax reform of 1986 -- President Reagan and Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski teamed up across party lines to reform the tax code, increasing revenues, eliminating loopholes.

Gramm-Rudman(-Hollings) -- threats of Sequestration (across the board spending cuts) held down the spending ceiling, though executive sequestration (though the Comptroller) was eventually held to be a violation of separation of powers and this unconstitutional

Bush Deficit Reduction Act of 1991 -- President Bush and Democrats came to a deal increasing taxes and cutting spending (conservatives today allege this spending wasn't cut, can someone confirm?)

By the time President Clinton assumed the office, he inherited a trajectory from Presidents Reagan & Daddy Bush (would be more noticeable without the Gulf War) and Congressional Democrats for a diminishing national deficit--a good position but certainly no guarantee.

From there, working with Congressional Dems until 1994, then Republicans in the House after 1994, he increased marginal tax rates, cut military spending as a 'peace dividend, cut welfare spending through reforms with Speaker Gingrich.

Note he did not massively cut social spending, state aid, or federal workers. Or use the improving trajectory as an excuse to cut taxes on the wealthy. Ahem.

Near the end of his term, the economic boom was so strong--to be fair, no strong correlation to his policies, according to modern economic theory, as government has a primarily counter cyclical role -- combined with the higher marginal tax rates, money poured into government coffers.

By 2000, on the cusp of the Bush presidency, the annual budget deficit had been replaced by a surplus, though the federal debt only had a short time of reduction before the fiscal disaster of the Bush presidency began.