Post New

Since the end of the Cold War in 1988, a total of 51 million jobs have been created in the US.

50 million of those 51M jobs were created under Democratic Presidents - Clinton, Obama and Biden

Only 1 million of those 51M jobs were created under Republican Presidents - Bush and Trump

Thank you, President Clinton, for giving us these facts today. Clinton was the only President since 1990 to deliver a balanced budget.

When it comes to creating jobs, Democratic Presidents trounce Republican Presidents by a 50:1 ratio.

Clinton was the only President since 1990 to deliver a balanced budget. - mechinv

-------------

Forced on him by a Republican congress.

Thank you, President Clinton, for giving us these facts today. Clinton was the only President since 1990 to deliver a balanced budget.
*****

INDEED!

"The Era of Big Government is OVER!"

Welfare Reform *against* wishes of Progressives and working with the new Republican Congress -- versus the scandal plagued Democrat congress that was voted out.

100,000 MORE COPS! Hell yeah!

PRO death penalty.

ANTI gay marriage.

Don't ask, Don't Tell.

Bill Clinton did some great things. As far as "creating jobs" indeed. Bill Clinton personally founded all the high tech corporations and the ensuing productivity gains, stock market gains and ripple wealth effect too.

Where does he find the time.

"The Era of Big Government is OVER!"

Welfare Reform *against* wishes of Progressives and working with the new Republican Congress -- versus the scandal plagued Democrat congress that was voted out.

OMG. These threads are like those USA Up All Night movies: so bad they were unintentionally hilarious. Remember those?

Bill Clinton wanted to spend the "peace dividend"; it was only after Newt Gingrich forced a budget on him did he cave.

libs of questionable historical knowledge also want to foist the housing crisis on Bush, but memory hole things like this:

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statemen...

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act makes the most important legislative changes to the structure of the U.S. financial system since the 1930s. Financial services firms will be authorized to conduct a wide range of financial activities, allowing them freedom to innovate in the new economy. The Act repeals provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act that, since the Great Depression, have restricted affiliations between banks and securities firms. It also amends the Bank Holding Company Act to remove restrictions on affiliations between banks and insurance companies. It grants banks significant new authority to conduct most newly authorized activities through financial subsidiaries.

How'd that work out for everybody? In looking this up I noticed a bunch of lib "fact check" sites trying to hand wave this one away (it had nothing to do with the collapse! nOThInG I tell you!) and other such BS.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act makes the most important legislative changes to the structure of the U.S. financial system since the 1930s. Financial services firms will be authorized to conduct a wide range of financial activities, allowing them freedom to innovate in the new economy. The Act repeals provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act that, since the Great Depression, have restricted affiliations between banks and securities firms. It also amends the Bank Holding Company Act to remove restrictions on affiliations between banks and insurance companies. It grants banks significant new authority to conduct most newly authorized activities through financial subsidiaries.

DOPE: How'd that work out for everybody? In looking this up I noticed a bunch of lib "fact check" sites trying to hand wave this one away (it had nothing to do with the collapse! nOThInG I tell you!) and other such BS

Isn't that the act passed by Republicans in the House and Senate that had enough votes to override a veto so Clinton signed it? So are you doing the normal slight of hand to blame it on Clinton? The housing crisis was also aided by Greenspan's ideology - remember when he lectured Congress that banker CEOs were all professionals? All the Economists were spouting Hayek until the GFC hit, then were spouting Keynes.

How'd that work out for everybody?

You might be surprised to know that the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act was sponsored by Sen. Phil Gramm (R, Texas), Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa), and Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R, Virginia).

Hint: the R stands for Republican.

I’m sure you recall that House of Representatives, Rep. John Dingell (D, Michigan) argued that the bill would result in banks becoming "too big to fail” AND that this would necessarily result in a bailout by the Federal Government.

So yes, how did that Republican plan work out for everybody?

Forced on him by a Republican congress.

Not really. If that were the case, then you would expect when Reps control either Congress or the WH or both, that budgets would be better. But the opposite is generally true. Reps blow up the deficit and/or national debt when they have the reins. Reagan had a friendly congress, and he tripled the national debt in 8 years.

Forced on him by a Republican congress.

C’mon man. EVERY Republican in Congress opposed the plan. Hell, I opposed a lot of it. But let’s at least tell the truth, ok?

Wikipedia:
In proposing a plan to cut the deficit, Clinton submitted a budget and corresponding tax legislation (the final, signed version was known as the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993) that would cut the deficit by $500 billion over five years by reducing $255 billion of spending and raising taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans.[5] It also imposed a new energy tax on all Americans and subjected about a quarter of those receiving Social Security payments to higher taxes on their benefits.[6]
Republican Congressional leaders launched an aggressive opposition against the bill, claiming that the tax increase would only make matters worse. Republicans were united in this opposition, and every Republican in both houses of Congress voted against the proposal. In fact, it took Vice President Gore's tie-breaking vote in the Senate to pass the bill.[7] After extensive lobbying by the Clinton Administration, the House narrowly voted in favor of the bill by a vote of 218 to 216.[8] The budget package expanded the earned income tax credit (EITC) as relief to low-income families. It reduced the amount they paid in federal income and Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax (FICA), providing $21 billion in savings for 15 million low-income families.
Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 into law on August 10, 1993.[9] The law created a 36 percent to 39.6 percent income tax for high-income individuals in the top 1.2% of wage earners. Businesses were given an income tax rate of 35%. The cap was repealed on Medicare. Gas taxes were raised 4.3 cents per gallon. The taxable portion of Social Security benefits were also increased.

Not really.
Yes, really.

If that were the case, then you would expect when Reps control either Congress or the WH or both, that budgets would be better.

Which has nothing to do with that particular Congress.

Reps blow up the deficit and/or national debt when they have the reins.

And democrats are fiscally responsible? Uhhh...no.
Year Deficit +2 debt %GDP Prez
2000 ($236) $18 -2.3% Clinton
2001 ($128) $133 -1.2% Clinton
2002 $158 $421 1.4% Bush
2003 $378 $555 3.3% Bush
2004 $413 $596 3.4% Bush
2005 $318 $554 2.4% Bush
2006 $248 $574 1.8% Bush
2007 $161 $501 1.1% Bush
2008 $459 $1,017 3.1% Bush
2009 $1,413 $1,885 9.8% Bush/Obama
2010 $1,294 $1,652 8.6% Obama
2011 $1,300 $1,229 8.3% Obama
2012 $1,077 $1,276 6.6% Obama
2013 $680 $672 4.0% Obama
2014 $485 $1,086 2.8% Obama
2015 $442 $327 2.4% Obama
2016 $585 $1,423 3.1% Obama
2017 $665 $671 3.4% Obama
2018 $779 $1,271 3.8% Trump
2019 $984 $1,203 4.6% Trump
2020 $3,132 $4,226 14.7% Trump
2021 $2,772 $1,484 11.8% Trump
2022 $1,376 $1,402 5.3% Biden
2023 $1,684 $2,238 6.2% Biden

Barack Obama elected to activate the 2nd tranche of TARP in 2009, that's why he gets credit for blowing out the budget that year. He followed that up with 3 more trillion dollar deficits, then tried to claim he was some sort of deficit hawk. Trump spent like a drunken sailor even before COVID, and then COVID came along. Biden was also horrible.

And democrats are fiscally responsible? Uhhh...no.

Below is an Investopedia link of presidents and the debt by president, dollar and percent. The list goes back to the early 1900s, but I’m going to focus on the post WWII era. This eliminates some outliers caused by 2 world wars (impacting both R & D presidents) and brings it more current. Feel free to check my numbers.

Interestingly, since WWII, there have been 7 R presidents and 7 D presidents. I am also aware that the president only controls so much. Economies ebb and flow, control of Congress changes, presidential terms differ, etc. But that’s what we’re discussing, politics.

Also, I am using percents, not dollars, as it just makes a whole lot more sense to me and I’m too lazy to convert dollars based on inflation over the last 75 years or so.

The 7 Ds had an average debt increase of 22.4% per president (ranging from a Truman low of .2 and an Obama high of 64.4%) and the 7 Rs had an average debt increase of 52.4% per president (Ike 7.6% to Reagan 160.8%). The percent of debt increase was over 2 times higher under the Rs.

Even if you dropped off the lowest D and the highest R (just for grins and giggles and to accentuate the point), the average was D 26.1% and R 34.4%.

It seems Republicans talk more like fiscal conservatives, but Democrats act more like fiscal conservatives.

And so to answer Dope’s question “and Democrats are fiscally responsible?”, the answer is; A whole lot more than the Republicans.


https://www.investopedia.com/us-debt-by-president-...

That was a bipartisan cluster, hardly a Pub only fail, cmon now. Leading Dems (Maxine Waters) wanted it to relax financing / loan standards for homeownership by low income. With no doc ARM loans the industry immediately invented, then packaged up in MBS for sale to unwitting foreign buyers and I watched by the SEC, everything that could have gone wrong did. Watch the Big Short sometime.

>>Forced on him by a Republican congress. <<

C’mon man. EVERY Republican in Congress opposed the plan. Hell, I opposed a lot of it. But let’s at least tell the truth, ok? -MrF

--------------------------

https://www.cato.org/commentary/no-bill-clinton-di...

Let us establish one point definitively: Bill Clinton didn’t balance the budget. Yes, he was there when it happened. But the record shows that was about the extent of his contribution.
.
.
.
When Republicans proposed their own balanced-budget plan, the White House waged a shameless Mediscare campaign to torpedo the plan — a campaign that the Washington Post slammed as “pure demagoguery.” It was Bill Clinton who, during the big budget fight in 1995, had to submit not one, not two, but five budgets until he begrudgingly matched the GOP’s balanced-budget plan. In fact, during the height of the budget wars in the summer of 1995, the Clinton administration admitted that “balancing the budget is not one of our top priorities.”
.
.
.
... more at link

Yeah, take it from Cato, the libertarian think tank. If you’re just going to scour the internet until you find something that supports your skewed viewpoint, there’s not much point in a discussion. Sigh.

I want to say one more thing re the Clinton-era balanced budget and substantial reduction of the national debt, unmatched in modern times. A major part of that accomplishment (along with a booming economy) consisted of tax INCREASES (both income and payroll taxes) on upper-income households along with trimming growth in defense spending. To reiterate, EVERY Republican member of Congress opposed OBRA-93. The Clinton-era balanced budgets were achieved DESPITE Republicans, not because of them. These are facts.

Wikipedia (with my boldface): "The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (or OBRA-93) was a federal law that was enacted by the 103rd United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on August 10, 1993. It has also been unofficially referred to as the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993. Part XIII of the law is also called the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993.

"The bill stemmed from a budget proposal made by Clinton in February 1993; he sought a mix of tax increases and spending reductions that would cut the deficit in half by 1997. Though every congressional Republican voted against the bill, it passed by narrow margins in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The act increased the top federal income tax rate from 31% to 39.6%, increased the corporate income tax rate, raised fuel taxes, and raised various other taxes. The bill also included $255 billion in spending cuts over a five-year period. In 1998, the effects of the bill helped the US federal government to experience its first budget surplus since the 1960s."

The bill stemmed from a budget proposal made by Clinton in February 1993; he sought a mix of tax increases and spending reductions that would cut the deficit in half by 1997. Though every congressional Republican voted against the bill, it passed by narrow margins in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The act increased the top federal income tax rate from 31% to 39.6%, increased the corporate income tax rate, raised fuel taxes, and raised various other taxes.

I remember this quite clearly. At the time I was reading all of the financial press I could get my hands on (I was running a newsletter company for the airline industry, Hispanic media, mainstream radio & TV, and others) and the overwhelming consensus was that it would crash the economy because, you know, “taxes”. Some were kinder and thought it would merely usher in a bad recession. There were predictions that the bond market would go haywire, that unemployment would soar, that … well, you get the idea.

At the time my reading list was the WSJ, Forbes, IBD, BusinessWeek, Fortune, CNBC, a few other newsletters, and as many online sources as were available with the simple “search and record” tools that CompuServe and AOL had at the time. The opinions of the tax hike were overwhelmingly negative and then…

Nothing happened. The internet was growing fast, new businesses were being created right and left, brick & mortar hadn’t yet realized their time was over, the bond market stayed quiescent, tax revenues soared, and the widely expected recession never happened. And … the budget was balanced.

Yes, I remember. It wasn’t “just” the tax increases, although that was certainly part of it. It was also the explosion of the internet, the availability of capital, and the limitations on government spending.

And then, of course, George Bush the lesser, aided by his buddies at the think tanks, declared “We can afford a tax cut”, followed closely by “We need a tax cut” at the first sign of the tech meltdown. We all know how that turned out.

Yeah, take it from Cato, the libertarian think tank. If you’re just going to scour the internet until you find something that supports your skewed viewpoint, there’s not much point in a discussion. Sigh.

There’s the PA three-fer: complain about a source, refuse to debate, then complain that the other side won’t engage.

As a side note, I remember quite clearly from the Fool the 3 or 4 of us who consistently called for fiscal discipline. No leftists were on that list.

And democrats are fiscally responsible? Uhhh...no.

I didn't say they were. I said they're better than Reps in that regard, allowing for inherited economies (like Obama, whom inherited a meltdown). Even Obama didn't add as much as some Reps added (as a percent of debt already present). As I said, Reagan TRIPLED the national debt during his time. The debt tends to go up more during Rep administrations. But nowhere did I claim that Dems are deficit hawks. They're not. It's mostly because the Reps are tax-cut fiends, and they implement them every chance they get. No surprise, that blows out the deficit and debt.

I remember when Clinton produced a budget surplus. Rather than agreeing to pay-down the debt that year, it seemed like everyone in Congress (both parties) were trying to push through their pet projects. It was like someone rang the dinner bell.

The act increased the top federal income tax rate from 31% to 39.6%

This is true, from personal experience. I absolutely loved giving 40% (marginal) to Feds and 11+% to California, not to mention SS and Medicare and CA SDI and sales taxes and gas taxes and property taxes and dividend taxes. Loved it. Absolutely. Can't wait for Democrats to feel entitled to even more of my money.

I absolutely loved giving 40% (marginal) to Feds and 11+% to California...

If you had some dollars taxed at 40%, you were making more than $470K per year (if married) while living in California. Congratulations, you're in the top 4% of earners in the US. You're also one those "coastal elites" that the MAGA people hate (insert smiley face here).

Can't wait for Democrats to feel entitled to even more of my money.

1) People in high-tax coastal states can make the argument that Trump felt he was entitled to more of their money. Thousands of people in NJ, CA, NY and CT paid thousands more in Trump taxes because Trump took away their ability to deduct their mortgage, property taxes and state taxes in full. I don't think the full SALT tax deduction is ever coming back.

2) The top tax bracket was 35% all through the George W Bush (Republican) years. In 2013, the Obama administration signed into law a new 39.6% bracket for any dollars earned above the $400K mark. But that new bracket was approved by and passed by the Republican majority-led house. So congressional Republicans in 2013 are also to blame for that new tax rate.

3) Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was passed in 2017, and got rid of the 39.6% bracket. However, due to concerns that the lower rates could increase the budget deficit by $3 trillion over 10 years, there was an agreement back then that the new tax brackets would expire in 2025. Even Trump and Republicans understood at the time that getting rid of the highest tax bracket would be temporary.

Since MAGA people hate the "coastal elites", I'm actually curious if Republican "elites" mainly voted for Nikki Haley (who would have lowered their taxes) or if they voted for Trump and agree with the MAGAs that the "elites" are the problem :)

Can't wait for Democrats to feel entitled to even more of my money.

Then make sure it's even more progressive than in the post. Really, very seriously, look out there and come up with your own rates. And don't let Republicans off the hook. Let them know they have to deal.

not to mention how liberals are absolutely forcing conservatives to live in high tax states like CA and NY , with no way out.
can you believe the GOP in Washington (state) think they should simply redraw state lines with Idaho so they can stay in place?

the good news : Misssissippi and Alabama are not wasting tax money trying to market their region to conservatives. plus, they get huge net fed tax revenue. make the move, its a win for everyone.

"Can't wait for Democrats to feel entitled to even more of my money."

Ah, it looks like you are one of those leeches who thinks they are entitled to live in this country without having to pay for the maintenance of the country.

>>"Can't wait for Democrats to feel entitled to even more of my money." - Kof3<<

Ah, it looks like you are one of those leeches who thinks they are entitled to live in this country without having to pay for the maintenance of the country. - sano

----------------

And you are labeling anyone who doesn't cheer for any idea for government to harvest more money from taxpayers as a leech, an entitled leech who pays zero towards the maintenance of the county.

Insults are not arguments.

Can't wait for Democrats to feel entitled to even more of my money.

If you want to vote for Republicans up and down the ticket other than for President, be my guest. But let's not obscure the over-riding fact that Donald Trump violated the Constitution and his oath of office by engaging in an elaborate and ultimately violent effort to subvert the peaceful transfer of power after he lost the 2020 election.

This is not a normal election between two normal candidates. Trump is unfit to hold any office of public trust ever again. It makes no sense to discuss "policy" differences as if this were a normal election. Trump has no policies, other than to stay out of prison. He is utterly bored with "policies," and always has been. His 2024 campaign is entirely about his personal grievances. That's all he talks about.

While the US Capitol was under attack on Jan. 6, House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy phoned Trump to tell him that the Vice President was in danger. He pleaded with Trump to call off the rioters.

"Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are," Trump said, according to GOP Members of Congress who were briefed on the call afterward by McCarthy. Trump’s comment set off what lawmakers familiar with the call described as a shouting match between the two men.

A furious McCarthy told the then-President the rioters were breaking into his office through the windows, and asked Trump, “Who the f-k do you think you're talking to?” according to a Republican lawmaker familiar with the call.

It makes no sense to discuss "policy" differences as if this were a normal election.

Sorry, but no.
I happen to reject your entire premise, so there's no point in addressing how you led your post off. Issues always matter and Harris isn't talking about anything she wants to do.

I happen to reject your entire premise,

So you aren't interested in discussing issues that are unfavorable to Trump. Like his policy on losing an election, which appears to be deny the loss. Sow uncertainty and doubt among your mindless followers. File endless lawsuits with no basis in fact. Lie as often as possible about how the election was stolen. Attempt to have your vice president killed because he won't help you steal the election. Encourage your followers to riot at the Capitol.

How do you feel about those issues? Or do you just want to sweep that one under the rug?

--Peter

Sorry, but no.
I happen to reject your entire premise, so there's no point in addressing how you led your post off. Issues always matter and Harris isn't talking about anything she wants to do. - Dope

----------------

The underlying problem is that Harris has no real grasp of the issues and cannot articulate her own position, let alone defend it, so of course her supporters say there is no point to a debate because Trump is so odious. Even if true, the American people deserve to know what her polices are or why she has repudiates so many of her prior positions.

So you aren't interested in discussing issues that are unfavorable to Trump. Like his policy on losing an election, which appears to be deny the loss. Sow uncertainty and doubt among your mindless followers. File endless lawsuits with no basis in fact. Lie as often as possible about how the election was stolen. Attempt to have your vice president killed because he won't help you steal the election. Encourage your followers to riot at the Capitol.

How do you feel about those issues? Or do you just want to sweep that one under the rug?

--Peter

-----------

So you apparently agree with Mr F that Harris has no need to engage since Trump is such a bad candidate and bad person. How does it follow that the American voters don't deserve to know her position on issues facing our country regardless?

The underlying problem is that Harris has no real grasp of the issues and cannot articulate her own position, let alone defend it, so of course her supporters say there is no point to a debate because Trump is so odious. Even if true, the American people deserve to know what her polices are or why she has repudiates so many of her prior positions.

This. Issues matter, and no amount of refusing to discuss them Because Reasons is going to make them go away.

Trump wasn't my first choice this cycle but he was selected by GOP primary and caucus voters in the normal primary cycle. So half the country picked that guy to run. Thus, he's running and therefore what he would do in office matters. So would what Harris wants to do.

The democrats are running a Frankenstein's monster of a campaign - part Obama in 2008 (don't ask about any issues, it's all Hope and Change) and Biden 2020 (hide him in the basement so he doesn't accidentally mess it up). They're doing both with Harris.

Problem is...issues matter. The voters deserve to know what you're going to do if they grant you the power that comes with the office of President of The United States.

"The underlying problem is that Harris has no real grasp of the issues and cannot articulate her own position, let alone defend it, so of course her supporters say there is no point to a debate because Trump is so odious. Even if true, the American people deserve to know what her polices are or why she has repudiates so many of her prior positions."

Hold sorry A$$ trump to the same standards. Have you listened to any of trump's campaign "speeches" ? What an effin joke he is. Have you heard his speech on economics ? You know, the 1 where he flashed a large Tic Tac container, and a mini Tic Tac container ?? What an effin joke.
Have you heard trump speak on anything but grievance? All I hear trump talk about is how America is 1 step away from a dystopian nightmare. Funny, I do not see any Zombies in the streets, anywhere.

Has trump resolved the helicopter forced landing with Willie Brown ? You know, the 1 where they were about to auger into the ground, and trump said Willie Brown told him what a horrible person Kamala was ?? When pressed on the blatant lie, trump swore he had proof it happened. Sure he does, lol, but I sure would like to see it. Brown says he's never been on a copter with trump in his entire life. Don't let this slide, demand that trump brings forth this evidence that he swore, on camera, that he has. What an effin joke trump is.

trump is the biggest effin joke in American political history.
When he gets his ass kicked in November and tells his ardent supporters to riot on
his behalf, r u going to answer the call??

“The underlying problem is that Harris has no real grasp of the issues and cannot articulate her own position…”

Nonsense. I’m guessing you didn’t watch much of the Dem convention. In any event, read this to begin to catch up: https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-financial-page/...

You are of course free to disagree with the Harris-Walz platform, but it’s silly to claim she has no positions or doesn’t understand the issues. She’s exceptionally smart, experienced, and knowledgeable.

You’ve got a once in a lifetime chance to do the right thing this time around. As the great G. W. Bush said, “Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, um, we won’t get fooled again.” By the way, why not ask that fellow Texan what he thinks about Trump? Or former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson?

How does it follow that the American voters don't deserve to know her position on issues facing our country regardless?

Anyone who cares can easily find her positions. Here's the Democratic Party platform. You're welcome.

https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platfor...

And for completeness, here's the Republican platform.

https://gop.com/about-our-party/
Have to scroll down to the platform section and click there to get the details.


What more do you want? I spent 1 minute googling so you didn't have to.

--Peter

Have you heard trump speak on anything but grievance? All I hear trump talk about is how America is 1 step away from a dystopian nightmare. Funny, I do not see any Zombies in the streets, anywhere.

Has trump resolved the helicopter forced landing with Willie Brown ? You know, the 1 where they were about to auger into the ground, and trump said Willie Brown told him what a horrible person Kamala was ?? When pressed on the blatant lie, trump swore he had proof it happened. Sure he does, lol, but I sure would like to see it. Brown says he's never been on a copter with trump in his entire life. Don't let this slide, demand that trump brings forth this evidence that he swore, on camera, that he has. What an effin joke trump is.

trump is the biggest effin joke in American political history.
When he gets his ass kicked in November and tells his ardent supporters to riot on
his behalf, r u going to answer the call?? - UNJ

------------

Thank you for that synopsis of Harris' prescriptions for our country.

You are of course free to disagree with the Harris-Walz platform, but it’s silly to claim she has no positions or doesn’t understand the issues. She’s exceptionally smart, experienced, and knowledgeable.

I heard mostly feelings and joy at the convention. When she did let her plan for price controls leak into public views, she was soundly beat up by everybody for her impractical program. Taxing unrealized capital gains is another one.

So I understand the best course forward for her is to be as vague as possible, and to avoid venues like interviews where she will be asked questions where the script in not on the prompter.

She express feelings and noble ideals as plans. They are goals, not plans.

Harris, "My plan will achieve <insert desirable outcome here>, you don't need to know how, just trust me because Trump is bad."

What more do you want? I spent 1 minute googling so you didn't have to.

--Peter

---------

I suspect she has not read most of this, let alone having a hand it writing it. I want her to talk about these plans and defend them in a forum where questions about the effectiveness or costs can be asked.

Her "plan" refers to rescuing us from Trumps Recession. She apparently has a new definition for recession ("Democrats stand ready to take immediate, decisive action to pull the economy out of President Trump’s recession by...".)

What is her definition of recession and how will the solutions listed achieve that goal, they mostly just funnel money toward various liberal causes but none of them seem stimulative to the economy, maybe they are, she should explain. If she can, can she?

Putting Homeownership in Reach and Guaranteeing Safe Housing for Every American

This is simply NOT possible. She should explain why she thinks it is... Her idea of making something affordable is to have government help pay for it, rather than driving down the cost inputs that are making the item unaffordable to many in the first place.

and so on...

I want her to talk about these plans and defend them in a forum where questions about the effectiveness or costs can be asked.

And I want to hear Trump defend his record on attacks on the US Capitol. And his record in court cases questioning the 2020 election. How about his record of criminal convictions? Why won't he - or any of his defenders here - talk about those things? Aren't they important when considering his candidacy?

Aren't you concerned about the potential for a convicted felon to be elected? If not, why not?

--Peter

Hold sorry A$$ trump to the same standards. Have you listened to any of trump's campaign "speeches"? What an effin joke he is.

Trump is only capable of delivering 2 speeches:
His incoherent, whining, grieving rally rant or his low energy prompter reading.

Here's the big problem for him: Both of these speeches are boring and stale af. And he's too dumb to learn anything new.

Have you heard trump speak on anything but grievance?

MAGA - My All Grievances Always people/party/policy, or maybe Making American Grievances Acceptable

I heard mostly feelings and joy at the convention. When she did let her plan for price controls leak into public views, she was soundly beat up by everybody for her impractical program. Taxing unrealized capital gains is another one.

I see them as trial balloons. The entire reason you're harping on it is you haven't been able to get anything to stick, so you're frustrated. Trump's death goo isn't working. But Trump has had plenty of time and what has he done? Abandoned Project 2025. Thrown the Evangelicals away as he abandons an abortion ban - prison does tend to scare narcissistic types who need adulation. So what's his big issue? Back to the border? He's a one trick pony who'll screw up the border for us while he slimes our reputation. Trump has deliberately shed anything he can get criticized on and is upset he can't hit Kamala with his death goo. Cheers!

Putting Homeownership in Reach and Guaranteeing Safe Housing for Every American

This is simply NOT possible. She should explain why she thinks it is..

Welcome to the wonderful Trump world of vague policies that are never implemented. Don't worry we'll replace houses with something wonderful. Right along with better cheaper medical care - and we'll get Putin to pay for it, or maybe Mexico -split it! Then we can drill over and steal all of Iran's oil. That's the ticket! Hannibal Lecter invites everyone over for a meal with some Chianti and fava beans.

The underlying problem is that Harris has no real grasp of the issues and cannot articulate her own position, let alone defend it...

When you make a statement like this AND you are a Trump supporter you sound like a fool.

The very stable genius has no solid policies, he just goes where his grifting nose leads him. And you follow?

If you had some dollars taxed at 40%, you were making more than $470K per year (if married) while living in California.

During the Clinton era, I was single, carefree, and had no tax deductions to hide behind. At tax time, Democrats just shoved a hose up my pocket and hoovered up as much as they could. Thank God for Trump's TJCA.

During the Clinton era, I was single, carefree, and had no tax deductions to hide behind. At tax time, Democrats just shoved a hose up my pocket and hoovered up as much as they could. Thank God for Trump's TJCA.

Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 into law on August 10, 1993. The law created a 36 percent to 39.6 percent income tax for high-income individuals in the top 1.2% of wage earners.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_t....

So you were in the Top 1.2% of wage earners? Congratulations. If, by chance, you have a memory dysfunction, please realize you were paying the tax rates of Republicans: specifically George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.

Your attention to this matter would be appreciated.

During the Clinton era, I was single, carefree, and had no tax deductions to hide behind. At tax time, Democrats just shoved a hose up my pocket and hoovered up as much as they could. Thank God for Trump's TJCA.

If you had a job, you didn't get a payroll tax deduction? If you had a Sch C, you didn't pay quarterly taxes? It sounds like you mismanaged your finances and had to pay it all at tax time. Did you pay penalties and interest? If you mismanage, Mr single and care free, you do get a rude awakening. And you usually find out part way through another year that you are mismanaging.

"And you are labeling anyone who doesn't cheer for any idea for government to harvest more money from taxpayers as a leech, an entitled leech who pays zero towards the maintenance of the county.
"

No. I was mocking his argument that Democrats feel entitled to his money. I thought that was rather obvious. He made a silly argument so I copied the format and applied it to him.

"Insults are not arguments."

Agree. Neither are making up false characterizations of your opponent's views. He did that so I demonstrated it by using the same type of argument on him. So ironically enough, you are really complaining about his post. LOL

"The underlying problem is that Harris has no real grasp of the issues and cannot articulate her own position, let alone defend it, so of course her supporters say there is no point to a debate because Trump is so odious. Even if true, the American people deserve to know what her polices are or why she has repudiates so many of her prior positions."

Nobody does unintentional irony like a nutter.

Have you ever considered applying the same standard to Trump? Of course not, you are in a cult. Trump would do far worse at policy details. It isn't even close. It is laughable for a Trumper to blame Harris for this.

Do better.

Trump would do far worse at policy details. It isn't even close. It is laughable for a Trumper to blame Harris for this.

This has been pointed out MANY times by the competent people who served in the Trump administration. Many books by insiders have addressed how incompetent Trump was. How lazy. How unable to grasp important details and nuance. How he had no patience for the actual work of governing. You know, like the spoiled brat that he is.

If, by chance, you have a memory dysfunction,

Dude, that was 32 years ago. You think forgetting something that was 32 years ago is memory dysfunction? You have really high standards, especially for normal people like me.

OK, also in my hazy memory, I was probably not in the top 1.2 but wasn't there a 39.6% tax under Clinton for bonuses and dividends? Or some special category of income. And I paid that.

Dude, that was 32 years ago. You think forgetting something that was 32 years ago is memory dysfunction? You have really high standards, especially for normal people like me.

I guess if my salary was $500,000 per year I would remember something like that.

Now I’m no tax expert, but I was getting significant bonuses and had some decent dividends in the 1990’s, and I have no memory of that income being treated any differently than any other. (Capital gains were different then, as now.) I read as much as I could and found nothing about a different treatment for dividends or bonuses. So when you blame Clinton for that I have to say “wha???”

Yes, he did raise the top brackets, to 36% if you earned more than $250,000, and to 39.6% if you were somewhere above $300,000, the inflation adjusted equivalent buying power of $530,000 and $630,000 today. Yeah, I would remember that. I remember extremely well paying six figures of taxes for 1999 when I cashed out all my gains in AOL and Cisco (and a few others.) Those things linger in the memory.

Meanwhile for the first time in, well, forever, the budget was balanced. It wasn’t only the doing of those hikes, it was also a recalcitrant Congress that refused new spending, and the gusher of tax receipts brought on by the internet (bubble) which produced a lot of corporate revenue and stock market gains.

But mostly you’re complaining about the same things that have happened (at least in nearly every bracket you and I were part of) during every Presidency. I agree with Bush did reduce taxes. The top brackets got thousands. You probably got about $60. Good show.

Post New

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.