Cutting taxes increased revenue as has been proven so please tell me why tax cuts that increase revenue aren't being paid for with that increase in revenue? Please show me the math that proves your claim that tax cuts contributed a major part of the debt generated?
What is a signature Democrat move is convincing good people that keeping more of what you earn is an expense to the govt. and has to be paid for. Keep eating that up, liberals love you
Show me the proof that cutting taxes makes more revenue than not cutting taxes. You can't because it is impossible. Revenue going up after cutting taxes proves nothing.
Here's what happened to Gov. Brownback when he made his "signature" tax cuts....
Tax Cuts Don’t Pay For Themselves « The Dish
Why should I listen to any politician? Name for me the site that measure saved jobs? Thanks in advance. By the way what was the California unemployment rate with those saved jobs??
You willingly buy what you are told when that person tells you what you want to hear. I buy the data and there is no such site that measure saved jobs.
Lower spending that could have happened all along, but NOOOOOOOOO can't have that. Reid wouldn't allow it.
total national debt exceeds GDP.
LOl Bushs great recession. How did Bush cause that global recession again?
...
Dem's had control 89 to 1994.
Reps had control 95 to 2000
Split controll from 01 to 2002
Reps had control from 03 to 2006
Dems had control from 07 to 2010
Split control from 11 to the present
...
The 1990's
Obama has been good on the deficit...
but if we are going to measure a presidency by the end results and not specific policies (as the Republican talk machine often does) then we have to say Obama is in fact doing well.
My assertion about the President alone getting credit is based on the overall idea that the president is where the buck stops.
What I want to know is during those years that we had a Republican POTUS and republicans controlled both houses of congress, why didn't they pursue serious border control and build a fence? Why didn't they eliminate welfare? Why didn't they fix SS? Why did they spend MORE money instead of less? Why did they grow the size of government? Why did they run huge budget deficits?
I'm just asken.
I might add that we have the Republican fiscal "experiment" running here in Kansas with Brownback and his statehouse cronies. It has been an absolute unmitigated disaster for the state.
I keep seeing people reference this. Am I crazy or something or is that just the only state with a republican governor and republican legislature?
Does Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississipi, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming just not count? Because all of them are completely Republican controlled as well. Can I cherry pick one of them and present that as the titular example of a republican run state at the exclusion of all others?
To me, that seems like a random milestone that means nothing.
Can you explain the significance of it?
I keep seeing people reference this. Am I crazy or something or is that just the only state with a republican governor and republican legislature?
Does Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississipi, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming just not count? Because all of them are completely Republican controlled as well. Can I cherry pick one of them and present that as the titular example of a republican run state at the exclusion of all others?
U.S. Deficit Decline to 2.8% of GDP Is Unprecedented Turn - Bloomberg
OMG, we need to stop Obama from spending us into ruin!!
Oh, wait.... the deficit is SHRINKING? Whodathunkit! I guess he's NOT the spender in chief as he's been labeled by the consistent and reliable deficit increasing Republicans.[/FONT][/COLOR]
It would be nice if everyone understood the Constitutional separation of duties. The President is supposed to faithfully execute the will of Congress. Congress is responsible for the budget. All revenues bill must start in the House.
The reason Kansas is front and center is that they've been far far more successful in actually implementing the tax policies that the GOP says they want. I mean MASSIVE tax cuts and the like. Kansas politicians have made their state the great GOP red state "live experiment" as Governor Brownback put it.
After his election, Brownback, who was a U.S. senator for 14 years and a 2008 presidential candidate, quickly moved to consolidate conservative power in the state by successfully challenging more moderate Republicans. Advised by Arthur Laffer, the father of supply-side economics, and supported by special interest groups backed by conservative billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, he pushed through legislation that cut taxes and spending, eliminated state jobs and denied far more applications for welfare assistance — not to mention that he tightened abortion regulations and loosened gun rules.
Brownback promised that the efforts would drive economic growth, create jobs and stabilize the Kansas budget. But the state is now reporting a more than $300 million revenue shortfall. The poverty rate increased. The state’s economy expanded a total of 2.3 percent in inflation-adjusted terms over the past two years, half the rate of its four neighbors. And Kansas’s credit rating has been downgraded.
link...
Can't condemn all Republicans for this because after he called it a live experiment in republican conservative policies many Republicans got pissed. Mostly because the experiment is failing miserably.
Here's Brownback's position on it:
Brownback didn’t just keep his promise, he embarked on a radical “real live experiment” in conservative governance. As he later explained to the Wall Street Journal, “My focus is to create a red-state model that allows the Republican ticket to say, ‘See, we’ve got a different way, and it works.’ ”
Brownback stepped out and tried to take a lead position by bragging on what conservative governance is and should look like so it's mostly a case of a guy building a giant pedestal to put himself on and watching it collapse in upon itself.
...or your post didn't come across as particularly satirical. You're basically blasting the concept of bringing facts into a political discussion. What should we use instead, by the way? Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock? <--- sarcasmClearly you lack an understanding of the subtlety of satire....
Actually, what I'm telling you to do is acknowledge MORE facts and more data, in order to unearth the underlying causality. Yes, truly I'm an idiot for trying to gather enough information to draw conclusions, and properly ascribe credit and/or blame for the resulting economic circumstances. <--- sarcasmAll the rest of your post is blabbering on and on attempting to explain away, give context to, or provide alternative reasonings for the facts I presented...
Yeah, that's probably because various individuals flatly refuse to acknowledge incredibly obvious facts, because of pre-existing partisan views. E.g. the refusal to recognize that the policies of one administration can have effects on a subsequent administration is self-serving and insufficient.Multiple people in this thread continue to make or imply conclussions and scream loudly that they are being backed up by FACTS. When people question them about the context and actual reasoning behind those facts, as you're doing here to my post, these individuals have generally launched back with a "these are facts, deal with it" style attitude dismissing any further discussion as to the "what" or "why" behind said facts.
If you say so. Unless you missed how I didn't dispute your facts, I pointed out how they were deceptively selective -- an error we can address by introducing the proper context. Nor do I recall actually ruling out any facts -- rather, I explicitly talked about expanding an overly simplified analysis.Your questioning of my facts does a wonderful job of illustrating the issue with just screaming "Facts facts facts" over again....
No, I do have issues with people are too selective with information, and exclude critical information -- regardless of "which side" it favors. I guess you missed the line where I said: "it doesn't really make sense to give any single party all the credit or all the blame. It doesn't work like that." Wow. Raging partisanship on my part. <--- sarcasmYou have no issue with the people who initiated the providing of overly simplified and selective analysis labeled as "facts" because it meshes with your hyper partisan world view....
Actually, I thought you were just being a garden-variety hypocrite. I don't have a problem with anyone who is willing and able to apply a more sophisticated analysis.....you suddenly do have an issue when I'm presenting it not as a serious argument but as an example highlighting the issue with their premise. Yeah, that is "nice".
you can source the Congressional Budget Office as cited here at Factcheck.org...
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report in August that said the stimulus bill has "[l]owered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points" and "ncreased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million."
linkypoo...
Now explain how you don't like that data. I'm sure you will.
So is the executive branch. The Executive Branch puts forth the budget. The congress then votes on it or modifies it and then votes on it. The budget generally originates in the executive branch with the executive branch putting in a budget request to congress.
Do you even realize what the CBO reports and how they get their information. I am waiting for you to give me the valid source that measures "saved" jobs? What Obama did was create a stimulus plan that allowed the states the freedom not to make tough choices. Obama bailed out union contracts and liberals trumpet jobs savings because that is what the liberal elites told you. Reality tells you there is no such measurement and CBO is an instrument of Congress and makes projections based upon Congressional assumptions. You really need a more credible source like BLS
Is there any constitutional requirement (like absolute requirement) that we have a budget? And is this budget supposed to be binding?
In my business, and in a non-profit that I used to help manage, we always prepared a budget, but never thought of it as binding. To me a budget is just a guideline and projection of future needs. Even if I prepare a personal budget, if something unexpected comes up that I have to pay for, like a medical bill or auto repair bill, well I just have to pay for it, regardless of whether or not I budgeted for it.
Likewise, I really don't like the idea that if I budget $X for a project, and it turns out that the project can be done under budget, that I then expand the project just to use up the rest of the budgeted funds. Just because $X is budgeted doesn't mean that I should use all the money if it's not needed, nor does it mean that I should abandon a partially completed project just because I maxed out the budget.
I knew you'd discount the nonpartisan CBO report. You are an EXTREME partisan and no data that you don't like will suit you no matter the source. :lamo
View attachment 67175456
What is also a fact is that 2/3rd cut still doesn't put us below the floor of the Fiscal Crisis deficits, established in 2008 at $458 Billion
What is also a fact is that the average deficit over this administrations time (giving 2009 numbers to GWB) thus far is more than double the average deficit held during the Bush Administration.
What is also fact is that the average deficit over this administrations time thus far is nearly 7 times greater than the average deficit levels of the past 20 years.
What is also fact is that the estimated deficit numbers for 2015 are actually slated to increase by just under $100 billion dollars, rather than decrease again. Placing it more than $100 Billion dollars higher than the floor of the fiscal crisis deficit levels.
But see, that's the tricky part and why you'll enjoy going up and bamboozling someone like Conservative who you feel you can beat one easily. You are pairing an objective FACT with a subjective point of reference, and hoping that people just treat your subjective reference as fact because of the other facts you're tossing around next to it.
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?