"The federal government collected a record amount of taxes in fiscal year 2014, topping $3 trillion in revenue."  

"First Time Ever: Federal Tax Revenues Top $1 Trillion Thru January; Gov't Still Runs $194B Deficit"  

 
We do not have a revenue problem.  

We Have a spending problem.

And the Dim solution......TAX more!

So these are the same people asking for tax welfare for there businesses and hiding money overseas.
Then they want to complain about taxes.  
Just stop it nuguy46. Lol

is like giving a bottle of vodka and car keys to a 16 year old alcoholic. And while I mostly blame Democrats for spending other people's money to buy votes, too many Republicans act like low caloriel Democrats. They like their version of big government. Instead of cutting or consolidating ineffective or redundant programs, they will try to reform them.

END OF MESSAGE

The OP makes the point in his post that tax revenues are at a record high and we still have a budget deficit.  Implied in his "Subject" he is making the point that some still blame the prior administration for the deficits.

While I think the "we do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem" conclusion is a bit too simplistic the first two replies do not in any way respond to that.

All they can do in whine about how the OP did not criticize the prior administration over any policy 7 years into their term.

How many left leaning folks are criticizing the current administration these days?

Still no response to the thrust of the OP's post I see.

Why can't you take a position defending the need for more revenues,  or defending the proposal by the OP to reduce spending, or something in some way related to his real point?

I guess I was not clear when I said the "left" I meant you and "bigguy" and BP on this board.  Where do you START threads complaining about the current administration or the current Democratic policies?  This seems to be what you expect of the OP (ie criticism of the Republican policies).

All you can do is respond to any criticism of Obama with some reference back to Bush.

Hence there really is no point to my response to you, which will probably stop.

I've already got you on "ignore" but alas that only works when I am signed in, so I guess I will have to be more diligent about signing in before perusing this board.

You never answered the lead question asked...you never do..that has been my point.

For a moment, let's pretend Hill Bill occupies the WH...When she runs the debt even higher and faster than the Glorious One, and it is pointed as such, will you STILL Blame Bush?

To put it as broadly and simplistically as you, more people = more taxpayers = more services required (well, obligated). Care to share your solution?

...too many Republicans act like low calorie Democrats. They like their version of big government. Instead of cutting or consolidating ineffective or redundant programs, they will try to... refunnel the money to *their* constituents.

And please don't pull any of the "good ol' days, when I was a kid" nostalgia. The only viable argument for better days than now would be the late 90s.

maybe policies that result in JOBS?
Lower taxes (history says it usually result in more tax revenue collected).
Leadership...something we haven't had in over 6 years.
(time to agree the Dims haven't given USA anything good for the economy)
Letting the border disintegrate and welcoming all illegals has many problems we'll have to deal with for years......(why are illegals allowed to pay in-state tuition when LEGAL out of state kids cannot?) Dims like to scream 'fairness..fairness"..what's fair about that policy?)

did they give us all the fixes you proposed? dirty harry wouldn't send a bill to WH for 6 years....repubs could not even propose an amendment to the bills that were not being sent forward...that's the govt the dims gave the country.

You and Romney cut from the same cloth!  

"Lower taxes (history says it usually result in more tax revenue collected)." - this is wrong as a generalization; it's not a straight line. There's a tipping point at which people devote more effort to avoiding taxes rather than paying them. Historically, it's when tax rates are well above 50%, like the 70-80% top rates we had back in the 50s/60s. In general, people avoid paying more than they're lawfully obligated. There's no evidence I've seen that correlates the lowering of tax rates with people willingly giving more or giving up their tax breaks.  

"Leadership...something we haven't had in over 6 years." - pure inane rhetoric; what's your argument? Obama (and what/who Obama represents) has enacted a long list of legislation he set out to accomplish (with plenty of casualties). That's leadership.  

"Letting the border disintegrate and welcoming all illegals has many problems we'll have to deal with for years......(why are illegals allowed to pay in-state tuition when LEGAL out of state kids cannot?) Dims like to scream 'fairness..fairness"..what's fair about that policy?)" - Border security is at the tightest it has ever been. Period. That's not to say that it's not ridiculous at how porous the border has been in the past, and arguably is today, but I also don't think that reasonable Americans want to live within an impenetrable bubble. Regarding tuition, it's a pragmatic attempt to integrate these kids as productive members of society rather than leave them with no career options outside of crime. There are good schools in every state - either citizens can reap the benefits of in-state tuition, or you can advocate for federal intervention to eliminate different rates for in-state/out-of-state. Pick your poison.

Wing-nuts like you!

Paying down the debt. The, Repukes got in an decided to give the wealthy a tax cut and start unnecessary war in Iraq, there's goes the surplus, and balanced budget. He was also restored Social Security on sound footing. What does Paul Ryan and Repukes want to do? Cut benefits by calling it an entitlement. It is not an entitlement when people put money into it and Repukes kept stealing from SS.

shows during the 90's revenues exploded (as the stock market went up and inflated the bubble) and spending was controlled.  Following the burst of the bubble and 9/11 and some tax cuts I think revenues declined and spending increased,  When the economy resumed growth in 2004, revenues increased again.

How much Clinton had to do with the explosion in revenues can be debated but I guess his VP did invent the internet so that must have helped.

On an annual basis, the debt hasn't gone down one nickel since 1957. Clinton got within a few billion one year, but that's as close as he got.

-- Modified on 4/29/2015 12:24:59 AM

I think there was a small surplus for a year or two so I think the claim that he began to pay down the debt is accurate, if not really meaningful.  I also think they stopped issuing 30 year treasuries at one point because we didn't need the money (or so we thought), no?  Of course this was all based on the premise that the stock market of the 90's would continue forever.  Can you say DOW 36,000?  Of course there were some voices thinking otherwise ie "Irrational Exuberance" (the book, not Greenspan).

Table 7.1 federal debt at end of the fiscal year, Oct 1
2000 = $5.628700 trillion
1999 = 5.605523 trillion
Revealing a deficit for the year 2000 of $23.177 billion
All other Clinton years the deficit was in triple digits (billions), so $23B the closest he got. A better source I use is the U.S. treasury direct debt to the penny website that says the deficit number for 2000 is slightly lower at 17.9073082714307 billion.

It’s likely you are remembering budget numbers but they are only projected values not the real recorded debt

The annual budgets show a surplus, while the gross federal debt continued to rise, while the debt held by the public declined slightly.  Could it be another Clintonian "it depends on what is is" moment???

-- Modified on 4/29/2015 8:02:38 PM

all of you guys have bungled the topic by failing to use proper terminology.

        Clinton indeed “began to pay down”  the “public debt” by about $452 billion, although he made no dent in the  “gross federal debt” which includes the SS and Medicare trust funds.

       So the correct reply to AF’s post was not “bullshit” but to recognize that he was talking about a specific portion of the debt.

        Didn’t I spank you on this very topic a year or so ago?
How does the saying go  -“those who don’t remember history are doomed to repeat it?”  

You do remember all the reasons why gun control  is so good, don’t you?  
LOL

AF made no mention of "public" debt. Nice of you to put words in his mouth in attempt to save him from himself.