Tax Cuts Steal Democracy

[Cellblock2429]

Liberals hate this country, they hate everyone who works, and really could care less about those that don't do anything, except continue to vote for the same people who give them free stuff. That right there is the "TRUE" stealing of "Democracy". What I earn should be mine not someone elses who didn't earn it. A good liberal is a dead liberal, please abort more liberals in planned parenthood.

Wow...well...a lot ot unpack here. First of all, it wasn't liberals who colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election, that was all Conservatives who did that. Secondly, why would those Conservatives be talking with Russian spies anyway if they didn't want to subvert this country and repeal and replace our democracy? Thirdly, why did Conservatives not have a viable plan to replace Obamacare when they had 7 years to come up with one if they didn't want to just sacrifice health care for tarnishing Obama's legacy? Finally, when it comes to "free stuff", I am not sure what you're referring to, but nothing is free. Not even tax cuts. All liberal proposals involve taxes in order to pay for things like Medicare-for-All. Conservatives are the ones who explode deficits and debt, under the "promise" that the tax cuts will pay for themselves, and we'd be so awash in revenue we wouldn't need to cut anything. At least, that's how it was sold for close to 37 years until the realities of governance and math caught up with the failed philosophy. At first, we were told tax cuts would lead to so much economic growth, we'd have surpluses as far as the eye can see. When that never materialized in the 80's, suddenly the rhetoric shifted to tax cuts coupled with spending cuts would somehow generate economic activity to justify the hit to the deficit. When that never materialized, Conservatives shifted the rhetoric that the reason the tax cuts didn't work was because...because...no answer. Now we are seeing the fruits of that play out in real time in places like Kansas and Louisiana...two states that did Reaganomics on steroids and as a result, saw their economies stagnate while all their neighbors' didn't. So why is that? The answer is obvious; tax cuts do not generate growth and are used as a mechanism to redistribute wealth to the top in the fallacy that they would "trickle down" on the rest of us. It was a crackpot theory when Bush the Elder called it voodoo economics, and it's still a crackpot theory today.

First of all, it wasn't liberals who colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election, that was all Conservatives who did that.

Did Russia expose the corruption of the DNC and HRC? Was that wrong?
Should that corruption have remained hidden from the public? Is that why you're mad?

/--- still waiting for prof that happened

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Liberals hate this country, they hate everyone who works, and really could care less about those that don't do anything, except continue to vote for the same people who give them free stuff. That right there is the "TRUE" stealing of "Democracy". What I earn should be mine not someone elses who didn't earn it. A good liberal is a dead liberal, please abort more liberals in planned parenthood.

Wow...well...a lot ot unpack here. First of all, it wasn't liberals who colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election, that was all Conservatives who did that. Secondly, why would those Conservatives be talking with Russian spies anyway if they didn't want to subvert this country and repeal and replace our democracy? Thirdly, why did Conservatives not have a viable plan to replace Obamacare when they had 7 years to come up with one if they didn't want to just sacrifice health care for tarnishing Obama's legacy? Finally, when it comes to "free stuff", I am not sure what you're referring to, but nothing is free. Not even tax cuts. All liberal proposals involve taxes in order to pay for things like Medicare-for-All. Conservatives are the ones who explode deficits and debt, under the "promise" that the tax cuts will pay for themselves, and we'd be so awash in revenue we wouldn't need to cut anything. At least, that's how it was sold for close to 37 years until the realities of governance and math caught up with the failed philosophy. At first, we were told tax cuts would lead to so much economic growth, we'd have surpluses as far as the eye can see. When that never materialized in the 80's, suddenly the rhetoric shifted to tax cuts coupled with spending cuts would somehow generate economic activity to justify the hit to the deficit. When that never materialized, Conservatives shifted the rhetoric that the reason the tax cuts didn't work was because...because...no answer. Now we are seeing the fruits of that play out in real time in places like Kansas and Louisiana...two states that did Reaganomics on steroids and as a result, saw their economies stagnate while all their neighbors' didn't. So why is that? The answer is obvious; tax cuts do not generate growth and are used as a mechanism to redistribute wealth to the top in the fallacy that they would "trickle down" on the rest of us. It was a crackpot theory when Bush the Elder called it voodoo economics, and it's still a crackpot theory today.

First of all, it wasn't liberals who colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election, that was all Conservatives who did that.

Did Russia expose the corruption of the DNC and HRC? Was that wrong?
Should that corruption have remained hidden from the public? Is that why you're mad?

/--- still waiting for prof that happened

If the Russians didn't expose corruption, why are they blamed for Hillary's loss?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Liberals hate this country, they hate everyone who works, and really could care less about those that don't do anything, except continue to vote for the same people who give them free stuff. That right there is the "TRUE" stealing of "Democracy". What I earn should be mine not someone elses who didn't earn it. A good liberal is a dead liberal, please abort more liberals in planned parenthood.

Wow...well...a lot ot unpack here. First of all, it wasn't liberals who colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election, that was all Conservatives who did that. Secondly, why would those Conservatives be talking with Russian spies anyway if they didn't want to subvert this country and repeal and replace our democracy? Thirdly, why did Conservatives not have a viable plan to replace Obamacare when they had 7 years to come up with one if they didn't want to just sacrifice health care for tarnishing Obama's legacy? Finally, when it comes to "free stuff", I am not sure what you're referring to, but nothing is free. Not even tax cuts. All liberal proposals involve taxes in order to pay for things like Medicare-for-All. Conservatives are the ones who explode deficits and debt, under the "promise" that the tax cuts will pay for themselves, and we'd be so awash in revenue we wouldn't need to cut anything. At least, that's how it was sold for close to 37 years until the realities of governance and math caught up with the failed philosophy. At first, we were told tax cuts would lead to so much economic growth, we'd have surpluses as far as the eye can see. When that never materialized in the 80's, suddenly the rhetoric shifted to tax cuts coupled with spending cuts would somehow generate economic activity to justify the hit to the deficit. When that never materialized, Conservatives shifted the rhetoric that the reason the tax cuts didn't work was because...because...no answer. Now we are seeing the fruits of that play out in real time in places like Kansas and Louisiana...two states that did Reaganomics on steroids and as a result, saw their economies stagnate while all their neighbors' didn't. So why is that? The answer is obvious; tax cuts do not generate growth and are used as a mechanism to redistribute wealth to the top in the fallacy that they would "trickle down" on the rest of us. It was a crackpot theory when Bush the Elder called it voodoo economics, and it's still a crackpot theory today.

First of all, it wasn't liberals who colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election, that was all Conservatives who did that.

Did Russia expose the corruption of the DNC and HRC? Was that wrong?
Should that corruption have remained hidden from the public? Is that why you're mad?

/--- still waiting for prof that happened

If the Russians didn't expose corruption, why are they blamed for Hillary's loss?

Because the Liberals never take responsibility for their actions. When Bill Clinton (I did not have sexual relations with that women) was found out that he was a sexual predator, who perjured himself, instead of manning up and taking the blame of his indiscretion against his wife and those he raped, he lied about it, blaming his sexual disease for his cause. Hillary Clinton was found to neglect her duties to 4 US citizens in Benghazi, and she said "At this point what difference does it make?" I wonder how she would of felt if Chelsea Clinton was one of those 4? So when the slimy crooked vagina candidate lost, it wasn't that she SUCKED as a candidate, but because the Russians made her lose. The boogey man made her lose..

 

[The Derp]

that was liberal total BS 2 weeks ago, now that Trump/Putin relations are at a very low point nobody is saying that. What planet have you been on for 2 weeks???

Are they "at a low point"? Who is telling you they're at a low point? Putin and Trump. So why would you believe them? Isn't it possible this dustup in Syria is just a distraction meant to throw the scent off the Russian-GOP ties that stink? If relations are at a "low point" how come Putin held court with Tillerson? How come Trump called Putin before he launched the missiles to tell him we were launching missiles? And furthermore, if these relations are so poor, why is there seemingly no strategy when it comes to Syria other than the theater we witnessed about two weeks ago? He fired missiles at an empty air base. What did that accomplish? Nothing other than make Trump feel like a big shot for picking on a little guy.

 

[The Derp]

f the Russians didn't expose corruption, why are they blamed for Hillary's loss?

If you pay attention to what I'm saying, you'll see that the issue wasn't Hillary's loss. The issue was that the Trump team colluded with a hostile foreign power to illegally break into the DNC servers in order to employ Active Measures in order to tip the election in Trump's favor. Whatever was going on in the DNC had nothing to do with that. They are two separate issues.

 

[The Derp]

we spent money for nothing in Vietnam and Iraq because liberals pulled out too soon in both case and thus sacrificed the gains we had made,and, in the case of Iraq, created ISIS. Barry learned the lesson and did not pull out of Afghanistan.

We were in Vietnam for close to twenty years, technically, between covert and overt military action. We have been in Iraq for 14 years, also between covert and overt military action. And it wasn't liberals who pulled out of either war. It was Nixon (Paris Peace Accords) and Bush the Dumber (Status of Forces Agreement). And the continued occupation of Afghanistan, which has been going on for 15 years, has done nothing to make us any safer, nor has it brought any stability to the country.

 

[The Derp]

So if freedom from big liberal government is not the founding principle of our country what is?

Again, not our country, my country. Russian trolls are not a part of this country.

That being said, my country has many founding principles, "freedom" as Putin would have us believe, is not one of them since slavery was still legal and only white, male, landowners could vote.

It was the "freedom" to not pay a very modest tax on a luxury import primarily consumed by rich people.

 

[The Derp]

Conservatives have proposed 30 balance budget amendments

So again, your trollishness is showing. Your posts started out articulate and grammatically correct, but as you exercise the script, you can see how the syntax and grammar of your posts degrade over the course of the thread. What that means is that you ran out of script and are now forced to improvise using a Google translator.

 

[The Derp]

If Bush asked for a $60 billion supplement, people saw and accounted for $60 billion. Right out in the open. The Treasury sold Treasury securities to fund the spending. Right out in the open. At fiscal year end, that added spending was counted in the total deficit. Right out in the open. That new deficit was added to the debt. Right out in the open

That is not what happened. What you wrote is utter nonsense. No, it was not accounted for! It was hidden in the Pentagon's budget. So it showed up in the deficit, but was nowhere to be found in the budgets. It was an "emergency spending initiative" that was masked by increased spending on things like the Bush Tax Cuts and Medicare Part-D.

From The Guardian:

The most obvious way in which the true cost of this war was kept hidden was with the use of supplemental appropriations to fund the occupation. ...These appropriations allowed the Bush administration to shield the Pentagon's budget from the cuts otherwise needed to finance the war, to keep the Pentagon's pet programs intact and to escape the scrutiny that Congress gives to its normal annual regular appropriations.

If you're under the impression it was some sort of black budget spending, you're wrong.

No, I'm actually quite right. These supplemental emergency spending initiatives (aka war budgets) were passed by Congress, however they were not a separate line item cost in the budget. Instead, these supplemental emergency spending initiatives show up as that in the Defense budget. And they show up that way in order to make it look like the war costs are just part of the overall defense budget, and thus do not need to be offset by anything to pay for them.

"Look at me, I ended Bush's hidden spending"...umm...the spending wasn't hidden, thanks anyway...

He never said he ended Bush's spending. He just ended the way Bush hid the true costs of the war in the Defense budget.

Are you assuming the Internet Bubble would have continued for 9 more years if Bush hadn't cut taxes?

No. The dotcom bubble popped before Bush was even elected President. We could have paid off the debt because we were running budget surpluses, and ten years of the budget surpluses we were running could have paid off the debt had the tax rates not been cut. That was in December of 2000, after the dotcom bubble had already burst. Which means they were already estimating using economic numbers post-dotcom bubble burst. BTW - what caused the dotcom bubble in the first place? The Capital Gains Tax Cut in 1997.

How'd Obama's plan for pulling out work? Oh, right...ISIS.

You mean Bush's plan. After all, it was Bush and the Conservatives who signed the Status of Forces Agreement in 2008 that set a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. So just like going into Iraq, Conservatives bumbled their way out of it.

 

[The Derp]

For third time: "if freedom from big liberal government is not the founding principle of our country what is"??? Do you know why you are afraid to answer a simple question? Ever find a conservative afraid to answer a simple question??? What does that teach you??

Yes, there are plenty of Conservatives afraid to answer simple questions. That's why they largely don't hold town halls...because they're scaredy cats.

 

[The Derp]

if the liberal fool has evidence of that I will pay him $10,000. Bet??

Easy there, Comrade. I don't think Putin pays that much for you to afford such a bet.

 

[The Derp]

Our founders were very very conservative and created the greatest country in human history by far. Sorry to rock your world.

How come as this thread progressed, the quality and syntax of your posts have degraded? Are you running out of script, so you have to improvise? The translating software you are using isn't really doing much to help your case. I can tell when Russian operatives reach the end of their script. They have to resort to things like that inarticulate mess above.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

f the Russians didn't expose corruption, why are they blamed for Hillary's loss?

If you pay attention to what I'm saying, you'll see that the issue wasn't Hillary's loss. The issue was that the Trump team colluded with a hostile foreign power to illegally break into the DNC servers in order to employ Active Measures in order to tip the election in Trump's favor. Whatever was going on in the DNC had nothing to do with that. They are two separate issues.

The issue was that the Trump team colluded with a hostile foreign power to illegally break into the DNC servers

That sounds awful!!

When were the servers broken into? Who did it?
Which Trump staffers discussed this with which Russian government officials? When?
Which votes were changed by the exposure of DNC and HRC corruption?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If Bush asked for a $60 billion supplement, people saw and accounted for $60 billion. Right out in the open. The Treasury sold Treasury securities to fund the spending. Right out in the open. At fiscal year end, that added spending was counted in the total deficit. Right out in the open. That new deficit was added to the debt. Right out in the open

That is not what happened. What you wrote is utter nonsense. No, it was not accounted for! It was hidden in the Pentagon's budget. So it showed up in the deficit, but was nowhere to be found in the budgets. It was an "emergency spending initiative" that was masked by increased spending on things like the Bush Tax Cuts and Medicare Part-D.

From The Guardian:

The most obvious way in which the true cost of this war was kept hidden was with the use of supplemental appropriations to fund the occupation. ...These appropriations allowed the Bush administration to shield the Pentagon's budget from the cuts otherwise needed to finance the war, to keep the Pentagon's pet programs intact and to escape the scrutiny that Congress gives to its normal annual regular appropriations.

If you're under the impression it was some sort of black budget spending, you're wrong.

No, I'm actually quite right. These supplemental emergency spending initiatives (aka war budgets) were passed by Congress, however they were not a separate line item cost in the budget. Instead, these supplemental emergency spending initiatives show up as that in the Defense budget. And they show up that way in order to make it look like the war costs are just part of the overall defense budget, and thus do not need to be offset by anything to pay for them.

"Look at me, I ended Bush's hidden spending"...umm...the spending wasn't hidden, thanks anyway...

He never said he ended Bush's spending. He just ended the way Bush hid the true costs of the war in the Defense budget.

Are you assuming the Internet Bubble would have continued for 9 more years if Bush hadn't cut taxes?

No. The dotcom bubble popped before Bush was even elected President. We could have paid off the debt because we were running budget surpluses, and ten years of the budget surpluses we were running could have paid off the debt had the tax rates not been cut. That was in December of 2000, after the dotcom bubble had already burst. Which means they were already estimating using economic numbers post-dotcom bubble burst. BTW - what caused the dotcom bubble in the first place? The Capital Gains Tax Cut in 1997.

How'd Obama's plan for pulling out work? Oh, right...ISIS.

You mean Bush's plan. After all, it was Bush and the Conservatives who signed the Status of Forces Agreement in 2008 that set a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. So just like going into Iraq, Conservatives bumbled their way out of it.

So it showed up in the deficit, but was nowhere to be found in the budgets.

Thanks for making your ignorance so obvious.

These supplemental emergency spending initiatives (aka war budgets) were passed by Congress, however they were not a separate line item cost in the budget.

Correct. They were passed after the budget was passed.

He just ended the way Bush hid the true costs of the war in the Defense budget.

Are you under the impression that Obama had no supplemental spending? Funny!

The dotcom bubble popped before Bush was even elected President. We could have paid off the debt because we were running budget surpluses,

Surpluses caused by the Bubble. Surpluses that would have ended even without tax cuts.

and ten years of the budget surpluses we were running could have paid off the debt

Just as we could have paid off the debt if the real estate bubble had run for another 10 years. LOL!

 

[The Derp]

When were the servers broken into? Who did it?
Which Trump staffers discussed this with which Russian government officials? When?
Which votes were changed by the exposure of DNC and HRC corruption?

No one is implying that the Russians changed the votes. What they did was illegally hack into the DNC in order to get information that could be disseminated via Russian Active Measures (identical to what the Kremlin did back during the days of the USSR) to influence the campaign.

As far as the details, that's the point of the investigations. Once they have finished, we will know those details.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When were the servers broken into? Who did it?
Which Trump staffers discussed this with which Russian government officials? When?
Which votes were changed by the exposure of DNC and HRC corruption?

No one is implying that the Russians changed the votes. What they did was illegally hack into the DNC in order to get information that could be disseminated via Russian Active Measures (identical to what the Kremlin did back during the days of the USSR) to influence the campaign.

As far as the details, that's the point of the investigations. Once they have finished, we will know those details.

No one is implying that the Russians changed the votes.

Plenty of Dems are making the claim that without "Russian interference" Clinton would have won.

What they did was illegally hack into the DNC in order to get information

On what date did they get this information (about DNC and HRC corruption)?

 

[The Derp]

Plenty of Dems are making the claim that without "Russian interference" Clinton would have won.

Right, Russian interference. How do you get from that to Russia hacking the voting machines in your rhetoric when it makes no sense? Simple...by employing Russian Active Measures in order to spread misinformation and disinformation to sow confusion. So you try to foist upon the opposing side a position that they do not have. You know this, of course, and are just playing obtuse for what reason? I don't understand the reason you are doing this if it's not because you either are a Russian yourself pretending to be an American, or you see the value in conflating an issue in order to avoid it completely.

What is SAD about Conservatives is that they are actually defending practices that the KGB used to use in Eastern Europe during the Cold War, as an ex-KGB agent who wants to crippled western democracies in order to re-establish the former Eastern Bloc employs them here in the US. It seems like Conservatives cannot win elections based on the merits of their ideas and policy. So instead, they employ dirty tricks with dirty people and collude with dirty foreign powers to achieve short-term political gain.

Party-before-country.

On what date did they get this information (about DNC and HRC corruption)?

Let's be clear...nothing the DNC or HRC did that they "exposed" was illegal. Unethical, sure, but more unethical than colluding with an ex-KGB officer to dig and expose things everyone already knew anyway? Nope. As for the date when they hacked Podesta and the DNC...that hack occurred on March 22nd, 2016.

 

[Wyatt earp]

that was liberal total BS 2 weeks ago, now that Trump/Putin relations are at a very low point nobody is saying that. What planet have you been on for 2 weeks???

Are they "at a low point"? Who is telling you they're at a low point? Putin and Trump. So why would you believe them? Isn't it possible this dustup in Syria is just a distraction meant to throw the scent off the Russian-GOP ties that stink? If relations are at a "low point" how come Putin held court with Tillerson? How come Trump called Putin before he launched the missiles to tell him we were launching missiles? And furthermore, if these relations are so poor, why is there seemingly no strategy when it comes to Syria other than the theater we witnessed about two weeks ago? He fired missiles at an empty air base. What did that accomplish? Nothing other than make Trump feel like a big shot for picking on a little guy.

Again we are going to tell them if we launch a barrage of missiles were they are operating so they don't think it's aimed at them, what do you think they don't have radar? It takes a split second thought before the push the button an launch there ICBMs at us..

 

[The Derp]

Again we are going to tell them if we launch a barrage of missiles were they are operating so they don't think it's aimed at them

Why would they think it's aimed at them? This is what makes no sense. This is what I'm talking about when I say there's no strategy. So since there is no coherent strategy on Syria from Trump, what exactly was the point of lobbing these missiles at an air base that was operational just hours after it was attacked?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Plenty of Dems are making the claim that without "Russian interference" Clinton would have won.

Right, Russian interference. How do you get from that to Russia hacking the voting machines in your rhetoric when it makes no sense? Simple...by employing Russian Active Measures in order to spread misinformation and disinformation to sow confusion. So you try to foist upon the opposing side a position that they do not have. You know this, of course, and are just playing obtuse for what reason? I don't understand the reason you are doing this if it's not because you either are a Russian yourself pretending to be an American, or you see the value in conflating an issue in order to avoid it completely.

What is SAD about Conservatives is that they are actually defending practices that the KGB used to use in Eastern Europe during the Cold War, as an ex-KGB agent who wants to crippled western democracies in order to re-establish the former Eastern Bloc employs them here in the US. It seems like Conservatives cannot win elections based on the merits of their ideas and policy. So instead, they employ dirty tricks with dirty people and collude with dirty foreign powers to achieve short-term political gain.

Party-before-country.

On what date did they get this information (about DNC and HRC corruption)?

Let's be clear...nothing the DNC or HRC did that they "exposed" was illegal. Unethical, sure, but more unethical than colluding with an ex-KGB officer to dig and expose things everyone already knew anyway? Nope. As for the date when they hacked Podesta and the DNC...that hack occurred on March 22nd, 2016.

Right, Russian interference. How do you get from that to Russia hacking the voting machines in your rhetoric when it makes no sense?

I agree, the Dem claims make no sense.

Simple...by employing Russian Active Measures in order to spread misinformation

So now misinformation was the cause of Hillary's defeat?

I don't understand the reason you are doing this if it's not because you either are a Russian yourself pretending to be an American

I don't understand why Dems, for 100 years, said Russia was fucking awesome, and in the last 12 months decided they were a threat.

It seems like Conservatives cannot win elections based on the merits of their ideas and policy.

Obviously.....which is why they hold the House, Senate and White House.

As for the date when they hacked Podesta and the DNC...that hack occurred on March 22nd, 2016.

Nearly 4 months before Trump became the nominee.