Originally Posted by Guest

The unemployment rate was 4.8 in January of 2017 and 4.1 in November of 2017. That's the lowest it's been in ten years.

How do companies make huge profits at the expense of our national debt? Do you understand that companies are taxed on their profits? If a company makes more money, the government gets more money.

The problem is not our companies being too successful. If anything the fact that they have been held back by high corporate taxes and excessive regulations have made them less profitable than they might have been. That means that the government received less money from them that they might have if they made more profits.

The problem is Congress always spends more money than it takes in. We have no law that limits the amount that they spend. the budget that is set forth at the beginning of the year is a joke. There is no law that says they must adhere to it. That is why we desperately need a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

And apparently you don't grasp that all the economists that have reviewed this tax package say the huge tax cuts to the corporations and to the wealthy are adding to the debt. In simple terms, if a corporation makes a profit of $100 and pays 30% tax, the government will receive $30. If the corporation makes $125 in profit, and pays 20% tax, the government will receive $25.

Howard Schultz, executive chairman of Starbucks said: “If you talk about tax reform, which is in the news every minute of every day, this is not tax reform. This is fool’s gold.”

As usual, the Fox News watchers have it wrong. Obama's policies contributed 983 billion to the debt between 2009 and 2017. This was a result of increased military spending, The Affordable care act, tax cuts and the American Recovery and Reinvestment act which was created to stimulate the economy after the 2008 financial crisis. During Obama's terms, there was less federal income than usual. The recession and the Bush tax cuts reduced tax receipts. At the same time, the cost of Social Security, Medicare, and other mandatory programs continued to increase. The War on Terror, although technically over, was still being fought in Afghanistan and Iraq, hence increase in national debt. Trump's new set of tax cuts is expected to add over $1.46 trillion to the national debt. There is no justification for this cut. Thanks to Obama, there is almost full employment. The financial crisis was dealt with. This is a simple case of giving money to the wealthy, and increasing the national debt even more.

Originally Posted by Guest

As usual, the Fox News watchers have it wrong. Obama's policies contributed 983 billion to the debt between 2009 and 2017. This was a result of increased military spending, The Affordable care act, tax cuts and the American Recovery and Reinvestment act which was created to stimulate the economy after the 2008 financial crisis. During Obama's terms, there was less federal income than usual. The recession and the Bush tax cuts reduced tax receipts. At the same time, the cost of Social Security, Medicare, and other mandatory programs continued to increase. The War on Terror, although technically over, was still being fought in Afghanistan and Iraq, hence increase in national debt. Trump's new set of tax cuts is expected to add over $1.46 trillion to the national debt. There is no justification for this cut. Thanks to Obama, there is almost full employment. The financial crisis was dealt with. This is a simple case of giving money to the wealthy, and increasing the national debt even more.

So "Obama's policies" added ONLY ......... So, he did not mean it when he said the buck stops in the oval office? It was ALL congresses fault? OK, so Obama was just as inept and impotent as I have stated for the past 8 years.

Addressing the tax cuts and the estimate of adding 1.5 trillion to the national debt, you do know that is calculating a never increasing average GDP growth of about 1.5%, right? The CBO can only calculate based on known figures. The truth is that if the GDP growth averages 3%, there will be a surplus. So far, there has been a three month GDP growth of 3%.

Originally Posted by Guest

And apparently you don't grasp that all the economists that have reviewed this tax package say the huge tax cuts to the corporations and to the wealthy are adding to the debt. In simple terms, if a corporation makes a profit of $100 and pays 30% tax, the government will receive $30. If the corporation makes $125 in profit, and pays 20% tax, the government will receive $25.

Howard Schultz, executive chairman of Starbucks said: “If you talk about tax reform, which is in the news every minute of every day, this is not tax reform. This is fool’s gold.”

The problem is that you're looking at everything as a zero-sum game. If, because of reduction in corporate taxes, more corporations decide to do business in the United States, there will be a much larger base that will feed the government.

And not all economists are saying that the plan is bad.

Here's an interesting little piece from CBS news.

Senate GOP - Breaking news: CBS This Morning asked three...

Originally Posted by Guest

So "Obama's policies" added ONLY ......... So, he did not mean it when he said the buck stops in the oval office? It was ALL congresses fault? OK, so Obama was just as inept and impotent as I have stated for the past 8 years.

Addressing the tax cuts and the estimate of adding 1.5 trillion to the national debt, you do know that is calculating a never increasing average GDP growth of about 1.5%, right? The CBO can only calculate based on known figures. The truth is that if the GDP growth averages 3%, there will be a surplus. So far, there has been a three month GDP growth of 3%.

Obama added $10 TRILLION to the debt.

The CBO numbers are garbage. We'll borrow closer to $2 trillion a year with Trump.

We have NO choice but to borrow...there's no way to EVER pay it back...and we CAN'T/WON'T cut expenses.

Originally Posted by Guest

So "Obama's policies" added ONLY ......... So, he did not mean it when he said the buck stops in the oval office? It was ALL congresses fault? OK, so Obama was just as inept and impotent as I have stated for the past 8 years.

Addressing the tax cuts and the estimate of adding 1.5 trillion to the national debt, you do know that is calculating a never increasing average GDP growth of about 1.5%, right? The CBO can only calculate based on known figures. The truth is that if the GDP growth averages 3%, there will be a surplus. So far, there has been a three month GDP growth of 3%.

Exactly right. The CBO is a joke. Their numbers are usually wrong. I don't know why we even have them. They must view everything as a zero-sum game. No one looks at budgetary numbers like that.

But there will never be a surplus as long as Congress is free to spend whatever they want. Most spending these days has to do with bringing home the bacon in an effort to get re-elected. Members will agree to sign off on each other's pork, sometimes even across party lines.

There are only two things that will stop this lunacy. Number one, term limits for Congress and number two, a balanced budget amendment.

Obviously all the numbers are a joke unless you read it on Fox News or hear it from the fat guy with the bad combover . You people are hopelessly close-minded.

Originally Posted by Guest

Obviously all the numbers are a joke unless you read it on Fox News or hear it from the fat guy with the bad combover . You people are hopelessly close-minded.

Obviously all the numbers are a joke unless you read it on CNN/NYT or hear it from the fat lady with the bad temper (Hillary for the slower among us) . You people are hopelessly close-minded.

There...fixed it for you. YOU are as closed minded as they are.

Originally Posted by Guest

As usual, the Fox News watchers have it wrong. Obama's policies contributed 983 billion to the debt between 2009 and 2017. This was a result of increased military spending, The Affordable care act, tax cuts and the American Recovery and Reinvestment act which was created to stimulate the economy after the 2008 financial crisis. During Obama's terms, there was less federal income than usual. The recession and the Bush tax cuts reduced tax receipts. At the same time, the cost of Social Security, Medicare, and other mandatory programs continued to increase. The War on Terror, although technically over, was still being fought in Afghanistan and Iraq, hence increase in national debt. Trump's new set of tax cuts is expected to add over $1.46 trillion to the national debt. There is no justification for this cut. Thanks to Obama, there is almost full employment. The financial crisis was dealt with. This is a simple case of giving money to the wealthy, and increasing the national debt even more.

There are three different ways to look at the debt increase during an administration and depending who's side you're on you'll either look at the most favorable or the most unfavorable. Like I said, even though we give the president blame or credit, debt comes from Congress spending more than they take in.

On January 20, 2009, when President Obama was sworn in, the debt was $10.626 trillion. On January 20, 2017, when he left, it was $19.947 trillion. That's almost double.

That is very simply how much the debt rose during the Obama administration. How much of that he was responsible for is a matter of discussion. Even though Congress is responsible for all of the spending the president still to sign the bills. Now a lot of different factors come into play here. Does the same party hold the Congress and the White House? Were bills passed with a clear veto-proof majority?

You can make numbers look like whatever you want, but the fact is that the debt grew almost as much in the eight years of the Obama presidency than it did for the previous two hundred and forty years of the nation.

Originally Posted by Guest

Exactly right. The CBO is a joke. Their numbers are usually wrong. I don't know why we even have them. They must view everything as a zero-sum game. No one looks at budgetary numbers like that.

But there will never be a surplus as long as Congress is free to spend whatever they want. Most spending these days has to do with bringing home the bacon in an effort to get re-elected. Members will agree to sign off on each other's pork, sometimes even across party lines.

There are only two things that will stop this lunacy. Number one, term limits for Congress and number two, a balanced budget amendment

We have term limits. it's called "voting'.

And the only thing that will stop this lunacy is to relitigate the Supreme Court decision of Citizen's United, which gave corporations the power to shovel unlimited dark money into the pockets of politicians. And that decision, fyi, was from the conservative "hero" Scalia, and why Republicans were so desperate to keep the Court conservative that they held Scalia's position unfilled for over a year (in defiance of their Constitutionally mandated duty). Ginsberg said we now have "the best democracy money can buy."

Five years after Citizens United ruling, big money reigns - LA Times

Originally Posted by Guest

We have term limits. it's called "voting'.

And the only thing that will stop this lunacy is to relitigate the Supreme Court decision of Citizen's United, which gave corporations the power to shovel unlimited dark money into the pockets of politicians. And that decision, fyi, was from the conservative "hero" Scalia, and why Republicans were so desperate to keep the Court conservative that they held Scalia's position unfilled for over a year (in defiance of their Constitutionally mandated duty).

Five years after Citizens United ruling, big money reigns - LA Times

Mellin...Citizens United was rulead as it was for ONE reason.

Presidential election now cost over a $ billion to run. You DON'T get that kind of money through $10 donations from the public. They NEED BIG MONEY donations and that's the way they get it.

They RIG the system for themselves,,,and then LIE to us about WHY.

Even welfare benefits them more than the poor. Sure...the poor eat...but Kraft and Tyson end up with the money as the poor spend it right away...using a JP Morgan EBT card. So, JP Morgan, Kraft and Tyson lobby for more welfare benefits.

That's how it works...government comes up with a "problem" and contracts out to "fix" it. The corporations CREATE the problem and then using the government get paid to fix the "problem" they created.

Question for those who support repealing the Obama Care Mandate. I understand it's limiting your freedoms to have to pay for insurance. But if you have income and don't want to pay for insurance don't you agree you should have to sign an agreement that if you get hit by a bus the ambulance will take you home put on your sofa and give you a bottle of aspirin and say good luck. Why, because if you go to the hospital and need a million dollars of care who pays for it? Everybody else who uses the hospital pays that bill. Seniors pay for medicare every month so why do they support a system that lets working people get subsidized care? When Fox News says heh seniors pay for the working people who want to party instead of paying for insurance why is this a good thing?

Originally Posted by dumbete

Question for those who support repealing the Obama Care Mandate. I understand it's limiting your freedoms to have to pay for insurance. But if you have income and don't want to pay for insurance don't you agree you should have to sign an agreement that if you get hit by a bus the ambulance will take you home put on your sofa and give you a bottle of aspirin and say good luck. Why, because if you go to the hospital and need a million dollars of care who pays for it? Everybody else who uses the hospital pays that bill. Seniors pay for medicare every month so why do they support a system that lets working people get subsidized care? When Fox News says heh seniors pay for the working people who want to party instead of paying for insurance why is this a good thing?

You are a fvcking idiot...

If a person has income and they go to the hospital, THEY are on the hook for the hospitals bill. If they refuse to pay, the hospital will send it to collection and could pursue a court judgement to lien their assets to satisfy the bill. Just because a person does not want to pay for something, does not mean the government steps in and pays the bill - that would be ideal in a liberals world.

"Everybody else who uses the hospital" does not pay anyone else's bill. Most people have insurance, all insurance companies (including Obammacare, Medicaid, and medicare) have a pre negotiated rate per code (every illness or service required has a code assigned to it for billing purposes). People that have insurance would only be required to pay the deductible, if they have one. People that do not have insurance and have income or resources to pay the bill, are charged at full rate (not the cheaper pre negotiated rate the insurance companies have)...

FYI - The person that has income most likely pays property tax and a portion of that is going to fire / paramedic services. If they ride in the ambulance to the hospital they will in most cases receive a bill for that transport...even though the equipment and personnel were funded by their property tax money.

What working people get subsidized care funded by seniors?

You should stick to something your qualified at, like cleaning the house!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Guest

Question for those who support repealing the Obama Care Mandate. I understand it's limiting your freedoms to have to pay for insurance. But if you have income and don't want to pay for insurance don't you agree you should have to sign an agreement that if you get hit by a bus the ambulance will take you home put on your sofa and give you a bottle of aspirin and say good luck. Why, because if you go to the hospital and need a million dollars of care who pays for it? Everybody else who uses the hospital pays that bill. Seniors pay for medicare every month so why do they support a system that lets working people get subsidized care? When Fox News says heh seniors pay for the working people who want to party instead of paying for insurance why is this a good thing?

Dougie...I'll give your ass some time to heal after dirt gave you a good f@cking...

I agree...if you're poor and have no insurance...they SHOULD just bring you home to die. WHY should everyone else pay for you to "get better" so you can leech some more?

Absolutely both parties deserve blame for spending money they don't have. It's the fundamental problem of any democracy. But if we are talking about accepting responsibility the buck stops with the president. It diminishes Reagan's accomplishments.