- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 43,236
- Reaction score
- 14,516
- Location
- US Southwest
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
So....you are in denial that conservatives (and note, most have gone extreme) are pushing for large cuts to fed govt spending.
So....you are in denial that conservatives (and note, most have gone extreme) are pushing for large cuts to fed govt spending.That's how slogans work ("starve the beast"). You should know that since you've chosen to follow along with so many of them yourself.
Ah...I see...the solution then, is not starve the beast, but not heal the veterans....not pay for past GOP spending.No, the primary driver of debt is overspending. If we don't spend more than we take in there is no debt, if we do, there is, regardless of what we spend it on.
So....you are in denial that conservatives (and note, most have gone extreme) are pushing for large cuts to fed govt spending.
Ah...I see...the solution then, is not starve the beast, but not heal the veterans....not pay for past GOP spending.
You are nearly as conflicted in this statement as you are with your other "not starve the beast" argument.Sorry, you're not going to heal us. Government doesn't have that power no matter how much money they have. However, the government should keep it promises to veterans. AND it should pay on the debt both parties have thus far incurred in the name of We the People. But it should also not add to that debt.
You are nearly as conflicted in this statement as you are with your other "not starve the beast" argument.
You are talking a a lot, but in the end you are negating yourself on both counts.
It IS results. More jobs have been consistently created by Democratic administrations than Republican ones. Those pesky facts again.
Bill Clinton Asserts Democrats Create More Jobs: Reality Check - Bloomberg
And yet you have been shown time after time, the primary driver of debt is:
LOL......I think the whole "starve the beast" aspect of "punishing govt" has ben the domain of conservatives for quite some time now, decades in fact.
We tax things we want less of. Maybe you would rather we just made those things illegal. I would gladly support a law forbidding corporations from moving overseas and selling here. Or maybe we should just forbid layoffs. That is done in other countries.
Um, I'm not "relying on slogans", you just admitted that the that conservatives are pushing for large cuts to fed govt spending :Only because it highlights that you're relying solely upon slogans to make your case against the opposing party/philosophy (slogans you apparently don't understand). Nothing at all conflicting about what I just posted.
So....you are in denial that conservatives (and note, most have gone extreme) are pushing for large cuts to fed govt spending.No, I don't deny that.
Um, it is what you wrote (whether you realized or not) and you too admit it to be "the plan"....not just a slogan.That really has nothing to do with, nor is it a relevant rebuttal of, my contention.
But, to respond to your comment, sometimes it's a good thing to put the beast on a diet.
Thank you for confirming my contention. But no, I would rather the government just keep its nose out of the free market.
btw, who gives a rip what other countries do?
by government do you mean the federal, the state, or both?
I once again regret the fact that showing you 2 well researched estimates, both based on CBO data, is a pointless exercise since they are impossible for your argument to accept, evaluate or comprehend.Love it, tax cuts caused half the deficits when tax cuts increased Revenue significantly and set records, 60% for Reagan and record revenue in 2007 for Bush, Wonder how that can be and where on the budget for the U.S. does it show tax cuts as an expense. I really feel sorry for you, an Obama supporter.
Um, it is what you wrote (whether you realized or not) and you too admit it to be "the plan"....not just a slogan.
Cough...BS....cough...No, that's not what I wrote.
I was speaking of actions of liberals/progressive/Democrats...at the federal level, since that's what this thread is about...and their use of the federal tax code...since that is what this thread is about. The governments being coerced, manipulated and, sometimes, punished that I referred to would be those at lower levels...State, local, etc. I really made no mention of liberals/progressives/Democrats...or anyone else...using the tax code to punish the federal government.
That was your attempt at derailment.
I am speaking to the topic of this thread. The federal government.
I once again regret the fact that showing you 2 well researched estimates, both based on CBO data, is a pointless exercise since they are impossible for your argument to accept, evaluate or comprehend.
Economic Downturn and Legacy of Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Deficits — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Love how Bush has been out of office for 6 years, had a Democrat Congress his last two years but the economic downturn was all his fault. You are a typical liberal who makes things up as you go along and buy CBO numbers when they suit you and ignore the revisions when they don't. Only in the liberal world are deficits created when people keep more of their own money. You see it doesn't matter that govt. revenue went up 60% during the Reagan term and 40% during the Bush years because liberals believe the economic activity created during both terms would have happened without the tax cuts. Funny how no one can explain why tax revenue went up after the tax cuts were fully implemented. Interesting.
LOL....Reagan did not cover his spending, which is why the debt tripled.....nor did Shrub where the debt doubled. The difference now is that the massive triple threat of continuing war costs, Shrub tax cuts and the Shrub recession still greatly impact current debt increases......whereas the Shrub inherited declining deficits/debt.Love how Bush has been out of office for 6 years, had a Democrat Congress his last two years but the economic downturn was all his fault. You are a typical liberal who makes things up as you go along and buy CBO numbers when they suit you and ignore the revisions when they don't. Only in the liberal world are deficits created when people keep more of their own money. You see it doesn't matter that govt. revenue went up 60% during the Reagan term and 40% during the Bush years because liberals believe the economic activity created during both terms would have happened without the tax cuts. Funny how no one can explain why tax revenue went up after the tax cuts were fully implemented. Interesting.
LOL, I can see why you are an Obama supporter, bye, done dealing with your circular baiting posts.
And yet you have been shown time after time, the primary driver of debt is:
LOL....Reagan did not cover his spending, which is why the debt tripled.....nor did Shrub where the debt doubled. The difference now is that the massive triple threat of continuing war costs, Shrub tax cuts and the Shrub recession still greatly impact current debt increases......whereas the Shrub inherited declining deficits/debt.
Cough...BS....cough...
Your opinion noted, some people simply don't get it and apparently you are in that group. Reagan's debt when he left office was 2.6 trillion dollars on a 5.6 trillion dollar economy, Bush's debt was 10.6 trillion on a 14.4 trillion dollar economy, today that debt is 17.6 trillion on a 17.2 trillion dollar economy, Hmmm, wonder if you can come up with the difference between the three Presidents.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?