$174,000 for 113 Days Work. Good Gig If You Can Get It.

[kaz]

Republicans brag about being the party of no

In the mean time they are accomplishing none of their agenda. They would have more to show if they actually compromised and received something in return for their support

They would have gotten a better healthcare bill, a budget that supports their programs, more tax concessions

But conservatives hate win-win solutions

Anything that allows the other guy to win also cannot be tolerated. Better everyone loses than both sides win

A "Democrat Compromise" is where Democrats get most, but not all, of what they asked for and give nothing in return. Then they attack you for having given them nothing. Pass.

You obviously don't understand compromise
Neither do Republicans

When asked in a debate whether they would accept $10 in spending cuts for $1 in new taxes.....not a single Republican raised his hand

That's because it was a lie. Reagan took a 3 for 1 deal with Tip. He mentioned he'd screwed up when Tip took the tax increase and the cut never happened.

 

[kaz]

You obviously don't understand compromise
Neither do Republicans

When asked in a debate whether they would accept $10 in spending cuts for $1 in new taxes.....not a single Republican raised his hand

Except those were not actual cuts.. but 'future' reductions in increases... and not ones that future congresses are bound to uphold.. it is fucking smoke and mirrors... and funny how those cuts are always in the future, and never the current budget...

And funny how those tax increases are only on those 'evil rich' again... while a growing number pay nothing in income tax and become bought votes...

Make cuts to a balanced budget NOW, THIS YEAR THAT CONGRESS IS BOUND TO, then you can talk tax increases.. how do them apples sound??

If we are serious about debt reduction we need to both increase taxes and decrease spending

Everyone has to make a sacrifice

So we increase taxes which slows the economy and then cut spending. That's not being serious about cutting deficits. What's being serious about cutting deficits is cutting taxes and cutting spending even more.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Except those were not actual cuts.. but 'future' reductions in increases... and not ones that future congresses are bound to uphold.. it is fucking smoke and mirrors... and funny how those cuts are always in the future, and never the current budget...

And funny how those tax increases are only on those 'evil rich' again... while a growing number pay nothing in income tax and become bought votes...

Make cuts to a balanced budget NOW, THIS YEAR THAT CONGRESS IS BOUND TO, then you can talk tax increases.. how do them apples sound??

If we are serious about debt reduction we need to both increase taxes and decrease spending

Everyone has to make a sacrifice

So we increase taxes which slows the economy and then cut spending. That's not being serious about cutting deficits. What's being serious about cutting deficits is cutting taxes and cutting spending even more.

Reagan raised taxes, did that slow the economy? Oh, of course he spent and spent and... well you know the rest.

 

[bripat9643]

If we are serious about debt reduction we need to both increase taxes and decrease spending

Everyone has to make a sacrifice

So we increase taxes which slows the economy and then cut spending. That's not being serious about cutting deficits. What's being serious about cutting deficits is cutting taxes and cutting spending even more.

Reagan raised taxes, did that slow the economy? Oh, of course he spent and spent and... well you know the rest.

Congress spent and spent and spent. And, yes, it did slow the economy. He cut taxes far more than he raised them. Furthermore, he put cost of living adjustments into the tax tables to prevent automatic tax increases via inflation. That's why the Dims really hate him.

Do you turds ever tire of repeating the same nonsense over and over and over and over and over?

 

[kaz]

If we are serious about debt reduction we need to both increase taxes and decrease spending

Everyone has to make a sacrifice

So we increase taxes which slows the economy and then cut spending. That's not being serious about cutting deficits. What's being serious about cutting deficits is cutting taxes and cutting spending even more.

Reagan raised taxes, did that slow the economy? Oh, of course he spent and spent and... well you know the rest.

He raised them with the 3 for 1 deal with Tip to cut spending by $3 for every $1 in new taxes. Tip was a liar just like Obama, the cuts never came. The economy did not take off until he turned around and cut and simplified them, and that bull market and economic tsunami he set off ran for almost two decades.

 

[bripat9643]

You obviously don't understand compromise
Neither do Republicans

When asked in a debate whether they would accept $10 in spending cuts for $1 in new taxes.....not a single Republican raised his hand

Except those were not actual cuts.. but 'future' reductions in increases... and not ones that future congresses are bound to uphold.. it is fucking smoke and mirrors... and funny how those cuts are always in the future, and never the current budget...

And funny how those tax increases are only on those 'evil rich' again... while a growing number pay nothing in income tax and become bought votes...

Make cuts to a balanced budget NOW, THIS YEAR THAT CONGRESS IS BOUND TO, then you can talk tax increases.. how do them apples sound??

If we are serious about debt reduction we need to both increase taxes and decrease spending

Everyone has to make a sacrifice

Horseshit. Taxes have been increased and increased and increased. So when are the spending cuts going to occur? The answer is never. The Dims will simply offer gimmicks instead of any actual spending cuts. The truth is the Dims will never cut spending, not unless you hold a gun to their heads.

 

[Desperado]

On the flip side of that coin it cost plenty to get the job:

The average winner in a Senate race spent $10.2 million, compared to $8.3 million in 2010 and just $7.5 million in 2008. That's an increase of 19 percent since 2010. Senate Democrats seemed to have to work particular hard to win their seats, spending an average of $11.9 million, compared to the average Republican winner who spent $7.1 million.

On the House side, there was a smaller but still quantifiable increase in the cost of winning. On average, a winner in the House spent $1.5 million, compared $1.4 million in 2010 and $1.3 million in 2008. In the House, it was Republicans who had to work a bit harder: The average winning House Republican had to spend $1.59 million to win a seat, a bit more than the $1.53 million spent by the average Democratic victor.

Election 2012: The Big Picture Shows Record Cost of Winning a Seat in Congress - OpenSecrets Blog

 

[rightwinger]

A "Democrat Compromise" is where Democrats get most, but not all, of what they asked for and give nothing in return. Then they attack you for having given them nothing. Pass.

You obviously don't understand compromise
Neither do Republicans

When asked in a debate whether they would accept $10 in spending cuts for $1 in new taxes.....not a single Republican raised his hand

That's because it was a lie. Reagan took a 3 for 1 deal with Tip. He mentioned he'd screwed up when Tip took the tax increase and the cut never happened.

Why didn't Reagan offer spending cuts when he got his massive tax cuts?

Neither side wants to tighten their belts

 

[whitehall]

The low information left still behaves as if democrats are in the minority. Maybe that's a good thing for the Country. Barry Hussein's birthday present to his wife of an extra week in Hawaii cost us more than the combined yearly salaries of congress members and Harry Reid's democrat senate majority seem confused about what country they represent.

 

[rightwinger]

Except those were not actual cuts.. but 'future' reductions in increases... and not ones that future congresses are bound to uphold.. it is fucking smoke and mirrors... and funny how those cuts are always in the future, and never the current budget...

And funny how those tax increases are only on those 'evil rich' again... while a growing number pay nothing in income tax and become bought votes...

Make cuts to a balanced budget NOW, THIS YEAR THAT CONGRESS IS BOUND TO, then you can talk tax increases.. how do them apples sound??

If we are serious about debt reduction we need to both increase taxes and decrease spending

Everyone has to make a sacrifice

Horseshit. Taxes have been increased and increased and increased. So when are the spending cuts going to occur? The answer is never. The Dims will simply offer gimmicks instead of any actual spending cuts. The truth is the Dims will never cut spending, not unless you hold a gun to their heads.

Taxes are lower than they were 30 years ago

At no time have republicans offered up spending cuts when they got their tax cuts. After all, tax cuts pay for themselves.

 

[kaz]

You obviously don't understand compromise
Neither do Republicans

When asked in a debate whether they would accept $10 in spending cuts for $1 in new taxes.....not a single Republican raised his hand

That's because it was a lie. Reagan took a 3 for 1 deal with Tip. He mentioned he'd screwed up when Tip took the tax increase and the cut never happened.

Why didn't Reagan offer spending cuts when he got his massive tax cuts?

Neither side wants to tighten their belts

First explain how you know the field of economics is wrong, then we'll get back to your question.

 

[bripat9643]

You obviously don't understand compromise
Neither do Republicans

When asked in a debate whether they would accept $10 in spending cuts for $1 in new taxes.....not a single Republican raised his hand

That's because it was a lie. Reagan took a 3 for 1 deal with Tip. He mentioned he'd screwed up when Tip took the tax increase and the cut never happened.

Why didn't Reagan offer spending cuts when he got his massive tax cuts?

Neither side wants to tighten their belts

Reagan tried to cut spending in every budget. And then Tip O'Neil declared his budgets "dead on arrival." The Democrats insisted on more spending.

 

[rightwinger]

That's because it was a lie. Reagan took a 3 for 1 deal with Tip. He mentioned he'd screwed up when Tip took the tax increase and the cut never happened.

Why didn't Reagan offer spending cuts when he got his massive tax cuts?

Neither side wants to tighten their belts

First explain how you know the field of economics is wrong, then we'll get back to your question.

Ok ....here is the theory of economics

Want to balance your budget, establish your spending threshold and set taxes accordingly

Reagan insisted on slashing taxes while he escalated spending........tripled our debt

 

[bripat9643]

If we are serious about debt reduction we need to both increase taxes and decrease spending

Everyone has to make a sacrifice

Horseshit. Taxes have been increased and increased and increased. So when are the spending cuts going to occur? The answer is never. The Dims will simply offer gimmicks instead of any actual spending cuts. The truth is the Dims will never cut spending, not unless you hold a gun to their heads.

Taxes are lower than they were 30 years ago

No they aren't. They are considerably higher. Reagan's top rate was 28.5%.

At no time have republicans offered up spending cuts when they got their tax cuts. After all, tax cuts pay for themselves.

That is a big load of horseshit. The Democrats are the ones who claimed to be willing to offer spending cuts. What they were really doing is telling the Republicans to kick the football.

Like all liberals, you're simply a sleazy lying weasel,

 

[kaz]

Why didn't Reagan offer spending cuts when he got his massive tax cuts?

Neither side wants to tighten their belts

First explain how you know the field of economics is wrong, then we'll get back to your question.

Ok ....here is the theory of economics

Want to balance your budget, establish your spending threshold and set taxes accordingly

Reagan insisted on slashing taxes while he escalated spending........tripled our debt

Wrong on economics and wrong on history.

Let's be serious, you don't actually care about what the truth is for either and save both of our time and effort in getting there.

 

[bripat9643]

Why didn't Reagan offer spending cuts when he got his massive tax cuts?

Neither side wants to tighten their belts

First explain how you know the field of economics is wrong, then we'll get back to your question.

Ok ....here is the theory of economics

Want to balance your budget, establish your spending threshold and set taxes accordingly

Reagan insisted on slashing taxes while he escalated spending........tripled our debt

Again, the Dims insisted on spending increases, not Reagan.

 

[bripat9643]

First explain how you know the field of economics is wrong, then we'll get back to your question.

Ok ....here is the theory of economics

Want to balance your budget, establish your spending threshold and set taxes accordingly

Reagan insisted on slashing taxes while he escalated spending........tripled our debt

Wrong on economics and wrong on history.

Let's be serious, you don't actually care about what the truth is for either and save both of our time and effort in getting there.

No, he obviously doesn't care. He's just regurgitating Democrat talking points that he knows to be lies. That's what all libturds do.

 

[kaz]

Ok ....here is the theory of economics

Want to balance your budget, establish your spending threshold and set taxes accordingly

Reagan insisted on slashing taxes while he escalated spending........tripled our debt

Wrong on economics and wrong on history.

Let's be serious, you don't actually care about what the truth is for either and save both of our time and effort in getting there.

No, he obviously doesn't care. He's just regurgitating Democrat talking points that he knows to be lies. That's what all libturds do.

Quibbling on a nit, but I actually don't think he "knows" what he's saying are lies. I think he's just repeating them from other Democrats and doesn't really care if they are true or not and doesn't really think about them. They serve his purpose in the discussion for a point, so he repeats the one he heard.

 

[kaz]

First explain how you know the field of economics is wrong, then we'll get back to your question.

Ok ....here is the theory of economics

Want to balance your budget, establish your spending threshold and set taxes accordingly

Reagan insisted on slashing taxes while he escalated spending........tripled our debt

Again, the Dims insisted on spending increases, not Reagan.

To be fair, Reagan did increase defense spending, but you're right that the increases were far more Tip on the domestic side. Reagan believed that the best thing for humanity was to cripple the Soviet Union and that defense spending was a way to drive their already top heavy economy into the ground, and the best thing for the American economy was lower, flatter, simpler taxes. He was right on both, but to get them he had to give Tip his massive increases in social spending. You can agree or disagree with his choice to do that, but that is the choice he made.

 

[rightwinger]

First explain how you know the field of economics is wrong, then we'll get back to your question.

Ok ....here is the theory of economics

Want to balance your budget, establish your spending threshold and set taxes accordingly

Reagan insisted on slashing taxes while he escalated spending........tripled our debt

Again, the Dims insisted on spending increases, not Reagan.

Reagan escalated the size of the military and military spending. The size of government grew under Reagan