Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
God you're stupid, ignorant or lazy.Top Economist Says Bernie's Plan Will SAVE the US $5 TrillionHey Billy. You understand that Obamacare was billed as saving us tons of money, right? And it actually was more expensive than anybody on the Dem side admitted. Why is it going to be different with single payer.That 18 trillion bullshit came from one bullshit biased source. Actual independent experts point out that all of his policies are matched with tax plans. The wealthy would pay more through closing loopholes. A single payer system, while expensive to implement, would ultimately save money over time verses the crap system we have now.Wow Im glad the world has Billy Triple Fail to point these things out....wouldn't wreck the deficit? It's because they are counting on their base being too stupid to know that all of their tax plans would.
Hey, Billy. Bernie Sanders wants to add $18t the debt and you havent said word one. Cruz's plan will reduce teh debt. You get that, right?
Please cite a source that says Sanders is not proposing 18T in new spending.
God you're lazy.
Why is it every Republican tax plan is there to help the uber wealthy and increase taxes on the middle class?
It is a lie their plans increase taxes on the middle class. For example, Trump's plan would exempt everyone who earns below $50k.
Look, we can't cut taxes for everyone, cut the corporate tax rate in half, and eliminate capital gains taxes, and then think revenues will stay the same or increase. That is the kind of thinking that has led to our $18 trillion debt.
That increase is in raw dollars. That isn't how you properly measure revenue. Inflation and the size of the economy must be taken into account. It must be computed as a percentage of GDP. Right now that is 16% which is near the historic low....wouldn't wreck the deficit? It's because they are counting on their base being too stupid to know that all of their tax plans would.
FYI, every major tax cut over the last 100 years has been followed by a substantial increase in federal revenue.
For example, the 2003 tax cuts were followed by a record-setting rise in federal revenue, going from $1.78 trillion in 2003 to $2.56 trillion in 2007, an increase of $778 billion. By comparison, Clinton's best 4 years of revenue saw revenue rise by $552 billion.
God you're stupid, ignorant or lazy.Top Economist Says Bernie's Plan Will SAVE the US $5 TrillionHey Billy. You understand that Obamacare was billed as saving us tons of money, right? And it actually was more expensive than anybody on the Dem side admitted. Why is it going to be different with single payer.That 18 trillion bullshit came from one bullshit biased source. Actual independent experts point out that all of his policies are matched with tax plans. The wealthy would pay more through closing loopholes. A single payer system, while expensive to implement, would ultimately save money over time verses the crap system we have now.Wow Im glad the world has Billy Triple Fail to point these things out....wouldn't wreck the deficit? It's because they are counting on their base being too stupid to know that all of their tax plans would.
Hey, Billy. Bernie Sanders wants to add $18t the debt and you havent said word one. Cruz's plan will reduce teh debt. You get that, right?
Please cite a source that says Sanders is not proposing 18T in new spending.
God you're lazy.
Either you didnt read your own article past the headling--possible.
Or you didnt understand it--likely
Or you're lying-probably
Or all three.
Because the article in no way refutes the idea that Sanders' plan will cost 18T. Instead it touts how much better life will be if we spend all that money.
Which is the kind of "dynamic scoring" that conservatives have been wanting for years from the CBO.
Now Billy has an uncomfortable choce. He can either laud Obama for bringing in the most revenue in "raw dollars" or he can charge that taxes still arent high enough because the ratio to gdp is low.That increase is in raw dollars. That isn't how you properly measure revenue. Inflation and the size of the economy must be taken into account. It must be computed as a percentage of GDP. Right now that is 16% which is near the historic low....wouldn't wreck the deficit? It's because they are counting on their base being too stupid to know that all of their tax plans would.
FYI, every major tax cut over the last 100 years has been followed by a substantial increase in federal revenue.
For example, the 2003 tax cuts were followed by a record-setting rise in federal revenue, going from $1.78 trillion in 2003 to $2.56 trillion in 2007, an increase of $778 billion. By comparison, Clinton's best 4 years of revenue saw revenue rise by $552 billion.
That is an absurd argument. "Raw dollars"? Yeah, the actual dollars that we received--that's what you're calling "raw dollars." When Congress creates budgets and targets revenue, they base it on "raw dollars," not on the phony percentage-GDP comparison. Again, if your boss gives you a 10K raise, try telling him that you didn't really get a 10K raise because your income as a percentage of GDP dropped or stayed the same.
As I documented in my thread on liberal lies about the 2003 tax cuts, if we compare revenue to GDP, then Obama has a miserable record because revenue as a percentage of GDP is lower under Obama than it was under Bush, even though revenue has risen more under Obama than it did under Bush (and of course we've paid for that draining of money from the economy with historically weak growth, with negative small business creation, with a high U-6 unemployment rate, with a drop in median family income, etc.).
Go ahead and adjust for inflation, and the hike in revenue in the four years after the 2003 tax cuts is still far more than Clinton's best four years, since inflation was minimal during both presidencies and since the two 4-year periods were close in time to each other. Clinton's best 4 years were from 1996 to 2000, while Bush's were from 2003-2007. Go use any online inflation calculator and do a measurement of the total increase in the middle of each period, such as comparing $552B in 1998 dollars to 2005 dollars. That would give you right around $660B, which is still over $100B less than Bush's $778B.
Why is it every Republican tax plan is there to help the uber wealthy and increase taxes on the middle class?
It is a lie their plans increase taxes on the middle class. For example, Trump's plan would exempt everyone who earns below $50k.
Look, we can't cut taxes for everyone, cut the corporate tax rate in half, and eliminate capital gains taxes, and then think revenues will stay the same or increase. That is the kind of thinking that has led to our $18 trillion debt.
Fine then enjoy watching corporations take their money and jobs and flee to other countries who have cut their tax rates to lure the corporations and jobs away from the US.
Which do you see as being more important......the deficit or our total debt? And as a bonus.....do you know the difference??...wouldn't wreck the deficit? It's because they are counting on their base being too stupid to know that all of their tax plans would.
[QUOTE="Matthew, post: 12786896, member: 22889"]They want to cut the hell out of infrastructure, science, r&d and education. Fuck the American people!!! Let's give some more tax cuts to the rich and bomb iran!!!!
Their tax plan would have this country looking more like Somalia.
What you're too thick to understand is that inflation is inevitable. Like it or not, 10,000 is worth less than it was a decade ago. That means ANY expense, including government expense, requires more dollars over time for the same desired product. That means it requires MORE dollars to pay for our expenses of today. If we have insufficient amount of dollars, revenue as a percentage of GDP is lower than it needs to be. And yeah, revenue as a percentage of GDP is low under Obama. That's because he made the retarded decision to extend the Bush tax cuts. Now that they are expired, however, revenue as a percentage of GDP has gone up slightly. The amount of growing raw dollars each year isn't enough to pay the government's expenses.That increase is in raw dollars. That isn't how you properly measure revenue. Inflation and the size of the economy must be taken into account. It must be computed as a percentage of GDP. Right now that is 16% which is near the historic low....wouldn't wreck the deficit? It's because they are counting on their base being too stupid to know that all of their tax plans would.
FYI, every major tax cut over the last 100 years has been followed by a substantial increase in federal revenue.
For example, the 2003 tax cuts were followed by a record-setting rise in federal revenue, going from $1.78 trillion in 2003 to $2.56 trillion in 2007, an increase of $778 billion. By comparison, Clinton's best 4 years of revenue saw revenue rise by $552 billion.
That is an absurd argument. "Raw dollars"? Yeah, the actual dollars that we received--that's what you're calling "raw dollars." When Congress creates budgets and targets revenue, they base it on "raw dollars," not on the phony percentage-GDP comparison. Again, if your boss gives you a 10K raise, try telling him that you didn't really get a 10K raise because your income as a percentage of GDP dropped or stayed the same.
As I documented in my thread on liberal lies about the 2003 tax cuts, if we compare revenue to GDP, then Obama has a miserable record because revenue as a percentage of GDP is lower under Obama than it was under Bush, even though revenue has risen more under Obama than it did under Bush (and of course we've paid for that draining of money from the economy with historically weak growth, with negative small business creation, with a high U-6 unemployment rate, with a drop in median family income, etc.).
Go ahead and adjust for inflation, and the hike in revenue in the four years after the 2003 tax cuts is still far more than Clinton's best four years, since inflation was minimal during both presidencies and since the two 4-year periods were close in time to each other. Clinton's best 4 years were from 1996 to 2000, while Bush's were from 2003-2007. Go use any online inflation calculator and do a measurement of the total increase in the middle of each period, such as comparing $552B in 1998 dollars to 2005 dollars. That would give you right around $660B, which is still over $100B less than Bush's $778B.
I don't understand how you can be so dumb to believe this 17 trillion bullshit. Obviously we know that Bernie wants to raise taxes on the wealthy. That means he has a tax plan to pay for his policies you noob. His free tuition plan, for example, would be paid for with a tax on Wall Street speculation.God you're stupid, ignorant or lazy.Top Economist Says Bernie's Plan Will SAVE the US $5 TrillionHey Billy. You understand that Obamacare was billed as saving us tons of money, right? And it actually was more expensive than anybody on the Dem side admitted. Why is it going to be different with single payer.That 18 trillion bullshit came from one bullshit biased source. Actual independent experts point out that all of his policies are matched with tax plans. The wealthy would pay more through closing loopholes. A single payer system, while expensive to implement, would ultimately save money over time verses the crap system we have now.Wow Im glad the world has Billy Triple Fail to point these things out....wouldn't wreck the deficit? It's because they are counting on their base being too stupid to know that all of their tax plans would.
Hey, Billy. Bernie Sanders wants to add $18t the debt and you havent said word one. Cruz's plan will reduce teh debt. You get that, right?
Please cite a source that says Sanders is not proposing 18T in new spending.
God you're lazy.
Either you didnt read your own article past the headling--possible.
Or you didnt understand it--likely
Or you're lying-probably
Or all three.
Because the article in no way refutes the idea that Sanders' plan will cost 18T. Instead it touts how much better life will be if we spend all that money.
Which is the kind of "dynamic scoring" that conservatives have been wanting for years from the CBO.
Are you as stupid as you sound??Right now the government is paying debt with more debt, that's how stupid this government is...Unfortunately, the government doesn't give us three dollars and raise our taxes to eight dollars. If it did, we would have a balanced budget.
Instead, it gives us three dollars, raises our taxes to seven dollars, and borrows a dollar.
That's how we got to where we are with the debt.
Not when the deficit is falling.
Are you as stupid as you sound??Right now the government is paying debt with more debt, that's how stupid this government is...Unfortunately, the government doesn't give us three dollars and raise our taxes to eight dollars. If it did, we would have a balanced budget.
Instead, it gives us three dollars, raises our taxes to seven dollars, and borrows a dollar.
That's how we got to where we are with the debt.
Not when the deficit is falling.
So you admit that it's pure tax&spend.The polar opposite of tax cuts and spending cuts.The sad part is that you're okay with the former and not the latterThat 18 trillion bullshit came from one bullshit biased source. Actual independent experts point out that all of his policies are matched with tax plans. The wealthy would pay more through closing loopholes. A single payer system, while expensive to implement, would ultimately save money over time verses the crap system we have now.Wow Im glad the world has Billy Triple Fail to point these things out....wouldn't wreck the deficit? It's because they are counting on their base being too stupid to know that all of their tax plans would.
Hey, Billy. Bernie Sanders wants to add $18t the debt and you havent said word one. Cruz's plan will reduce teh debt. You get that, right?
Billy, you are truly dumb as a turkey.I don't understand how you can be so dumb to believe this 17 trillion bullshit. Obviously we know that Bernie wants to raise taxes on the wealthy. That means he has a tax plan to pay for his policies you noob. His free tuition plan, for example, would be paid for with a tax on Wall Street speculation.God you're stupid, ignorant or lazy.Top Economist Says Bernie's Plan Will SAVE the US $5 TrillionHey Billy. You understand that Obamacare was billed as saving us tons of money, right? And it actually was more expensive than anybody on the Dem side admitted. Why is it going to be different with single payer.That 18 trillion bullshit came from one bullshit biased source. Actual independent experts point out that all of his policies are matched with tax plans. The wealthy would pay more through closing loopholes. A single payer system, while expensive to implement, would ultimately save money over time verses the crap system we have now.Wow Im glad the world has Billy Triple Fail to point these things out.
Hey, Billy. Bernie Sanders wants to add $18t the debt and you havent said word one. Cruz's plan will reduce teh debt. You get that, right?
Please cite a source that says Sanders is not proposing 18T in new spending.
God you're lazy.
Either you didnt read your own article past the headling--possible.
Or you didnt understand it--likely
Or you're lying-probably
Or all three.
Because the article in no way refutes the idea that Sanders' plan will cost 18T. Instead it touts how much better life will be if we spend all that money.
Which is the kind of "dynamic scoring" that conservatives have been wanting for years from the CBO.
