When Did Trump Make You A Keynesian?

[JBvM]

Most of what politicians say is only to be seen and not implemented.

Sounds like idol worship of a sick ideology

 

[JBvM]

Yes, and CEO's like Henry Ford own companies like Facebook and Twitter and YouTube who actively censor conservative speech currently.

conspiracy theory

 

[MarathonMike]

Is there anything in this world liberals hate more than a tax cut? They writhe in agony its funny

Do republicans love anything more than adding to the debt? They take such joy in being fiscally irresponsible.

You mean the national debt? Neither party cares much about that.

We've all heard the pseudocon Rube Herd parrot the meme that "tax cuts increase revenues". They get this meme from their propagandists and then repeat it unthinkingly.

There are two key facts which expose the lie hidden in that meme. First, the obvious fact is that if you lower tax rates all the way to zero, you have zero revenues. So at some point, tax cuts fail to increase revenues.

The second fact is one which their propagandists deliberately keep from the rubes. This is a deliberate omission, and therefore a deliberately crafted lie. And that fact is that revenues have also increased after a tax INCREASE.

See for yourself. Here is a history of tax rates: https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/fed_individual_rate_history_nominal.pdf

Notice how tax rates increased under Bill Clinton in 1993. The top marginal rate increased from 31 percent to 39.6 percent, and stayed that way until 2001.

Now here is a history of federal revenues: Who Really Pays Uncle Sam's Bills?

Notice how tax revenues INCREASED after the tax rates went UP a whopping 8.6 points:


FY 1991 - $1.05 trillion.
FY 1992 - $1.09 trillion.
FY 1993 - $1.15 trillion.
FY 1994 - $1.26 trillion.
FY 1995 - $1.35 trillion.
FY 1996 - $1.45 trillion.
FY 1997 - $1.58 trillion.
FY 1998 - $1.72 trillion.
FY 1999 - $1.82 trillion.
FY 2000 - $2.03 trillion

Just a few years after Clinton's tax increase, federal revenues had DOUBLED!!!

And after the Bush tax cut expired on the top marginal rate in 2013, federal revenues continued to increase:

FY 2012 - $2.45 trillion.
FY 2013 - $2.77 trillion.
FY 2014 - $3.02 trillion.
FY 2015 - $3.25 trillion.
FY 2016 - $3.27 trillion.
FY 2017 - $3.32 trillion.

So, clearly, increasing or decreasing tax rates a few points here and there has almost nothing to do with revenues.

As Bill Clinton said, "It's the economy, stupid."

By the way, job growth exploded during the higher tax Clinton years. 30 million jobs in 8 years, with less than 5 percent unemployment.

So the next time you are crowing about the current tax rate increasing revenues, you should know your propagandists are counting on you not looking beyond the carefully framed numbers they present to your dumb ass.


But it gets worse. Much worse. You are being even dumber than that.

Because while your pseudocon propagandists are crowing about revenues, they are counting on you not noticing that despite increased revenues, your party and your President are EXPLODING our deficits!

It's called misdirection. A classic magician's trick to fool the rubes.

Trump is on track to blow Obama's debt record wide open. And after whining and whining and whining and whining non-stop for eight years about Obama's spending, your propagandists have gone dark.

And so have you.

The stench of hypocrisy is all over you.

It's a calculated risk but if GDP growth can be sustained at current levels we can grow our way out of debt. Obamanomics was the worst of all worlds, skyrocketing debt, crippling regulations, increased taxes and anemic growth.

 

[JBvM]

In fact, the Boston Tea party was not over higher taxes for tea. In fact, British East Indies company lowered the cost of tea when they tried to create a monopoly. The issue was corporate control. The British government used the East Indies company to conquer India, they even had their own little army.

not bad. but then you had to add a conspiratorial commentary

and most Americans who quote the founding generation do so in ignorance and stupidity. Happy you had a few facts straight

 

[Votto]

Most of what politicians say is only to be seen and not implemented.

Sounds like idol worship of a sick ideology

What is the sick ideology? Are you suggesting that politicians don't make a living out of lying their arse off?

Really?

 

[Votto]

In fact, the Boston Tea party was not over higher taxes for tea. In fact, British East Indies company lowered the cost of tea when they tried to create a monopoly. The issue was corporate control. The British government used the East Indies company to conquer India, they even had their own little army.

not bad. but then you had to add a conspiratorial commentary

and most Americans who quote the founding generation do so in ignorance and stupidity. Happy you had a few facts straight

Just enough to somewhat sooth your partisan ideology.

Now go back to your idols.

 

[Votto]

Is there anything in this world liberals hate more than a tax cut? They writhe in agony its funny

Do republicans love anything more than adding to the debt? They take such joy in being fiscally irresponsible.

You mean the national debt? Neither party cares much about that.

We've all heard the pseudocon Rube Herd parrot the meme that "tax cuts increase revenues". They get this meme from their propagandists and then repeat it unthinkingly.

There are two key facts which expose the lie hidden in that meme. First, the obvious fact is that if you lower tax rates all the way to zero, you have zero revenues. So at some point, tax cuts fail to increase revenues.

The second fact is one which their propagandists deliberately keep from the rubes. This is a deliberate omission, and therefore a deliberately crafted lie. And that fact is that revenues have also increased after a tax INCREASE.

See for yourself. Here is a history of tax rates: https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/fed_individual_rate_history_nominal.pdf

Notice how tax rates increased under Bill Clinton in 1993. The top marginal rate increased from 31 percent to 39.6 percent, and stayed that way until 2001.

Now here is a history of federal revenues: Who Really Pays Uncle Sam's Bills?

Notice how tax revenues INCREASED after the tax rates went UP a whopping 8.6 points:


FY 1991 - $1.05 trillion.
FY 1992 - $1.09 trillion.
FY 1993 - $1.15 trillion.
FY 1994 - $1.26 trillion.
FY 1995 - $1.35 trillion.
FY 1996 - $1.45 trillion.
FY 1997 - $1.58 trillion.
FY 1998 - $1.72 trillion.
FY 1999 - $1.82 trillion.
FY 2000 - $2.03 trillion

Just a few years after Clinton's tax increase, federal revenues had DOUBLED!!!

And after the Bush tax cut expired on the top marginal rate in 2013, federal revenues continued to increase:

FY 2012 - $2.45 trillion.
FY 2013 - $2.77 trillion.
FY 2014 - $3.02 trillion.
FY 2015 - $3.25 trillion.
FY 2016 - $3.27 trillion.
FY 2017 - $3.32 trillion.

So, clearly, increasing or decreasing tax rates a few points here and there has almost nothing to do with revenues.

As Bill Clinton said, "It's the economy, stupid."

By the way, job growth exploded during the higher tax Clinton years. 30 million jobs in 8 years, with less than 5 percent unemployment.

So the next time you are crowing about the current tax rate increasing revenues, you should know your propagandists are counting on you not looking beyond the carefully framed numbers they present to your dumb ass.


But it gets worse. Much worse. You are being even dumber than that.

Because while your pseudocon propagandists are crowing about revenues, they are counting on you not noticing that despite increased revenues, your party and your President are EXPLODING our deficits!

It's called misdirection. A classic magician's trick to fool the rubes.

Trump is on track to blow Obama's debt record wide open. And after whining and whining and whining and whining non-stop for eight years about Obama's spending, your propagandists have gone dark.

And so have you.

The stench of hypocrisy is all over you.

It's a calculated risk but if GDP growth can be sustained at current levels we can grow our way out of debt. Obamanomics was the worst of all worlds, skyrocketing debt, crippling regulations, increased taxes and anemic growth.

Recently, Charles Schultz, the Founder of Starbucks, said he had considered a run for President. And to my dismay, this flaming Left winger who makes sure all his employees have health care coverage said that the US cannot afford all these entitlements any longer. He said that because of the massive debt, the US would be insane to pursue socialism and that they needed to grow out of the massive debt.

Economically, this makes him further to the right than Trump.

Sadly, he has no future in the DNC unless he champions free everything.

 

[Votto]

Yes, and CEO's like Henry Ford own companies like Facebook and Twitter and YouTube who actively censor conservative speech currently.

conspiracy theory

Putin made me do it, but only because Kav raped your daughter.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Here are the US deficits by year: Is the U.S. Budget Deficit Really That Bad?

FY 2009 $1.4 trillion
FY 2010 $1.3 trillion
FY 2011 $1.3 trillion
FY 2012 $1 trillion
FY 2013 $679 billion
FY 2014 $485 billion
FY 2015 $438 billion
FY 2016 $585 billion
FY 2017 $665 billion
FY 2018 $833 billion (est)
FY 2019 $984 billion (est)


As you can plainly see, during the Obama regime, deficits had a downward trend, and during the Trump regime they have an upward trend, with a lot of help by the Republican Congress. Just like deficits had an upward trend the last time a Republican President had a Republican Congress.


Also, Trump's tax "reform" will add $1.5 trillion dollars to our debt. The pseudocons crowed that this giant debt bill would stimulate the economy. It just doesn't get more Keynesian than that.

In fact, the pseudocons have out-Keynesed Keynes! Keynes didn't believe in deficit spending during an up economy. He actually believed we should pay our debt DOWN during an up economy.


So...when did Trump make you pseudocons into uber Keynesians?

Our debt was growing exponentially. The deficit is irrelevant since the govt should be doing without. This just tells me that the govt has a massive budget and needs to reduce it and do more with less. Our debt is what matters. Bush and O ran it up 16 trillion.

And there you have it. "Our debt is what matters."

If someone were to sum up my more than 75 thousand posts on this forum in five words, it would be, "Our debt is what matters."

Crowing about increased revenues is misdirection. Our federal spending is exploding faster than our revenues. This fact is deliberately kept from the tards by their propagandists.

Our debt is the single greatest threat to our security and our future. Not guns, not gays, not Muslims, not blacks on food stamps, not Mexicans, not abortion.

If we truly and honestly want to Make America Great Again, we absolutely must pay down our debt. Immediately.

What is so fucking maddening to me is that it would be incredibly simple and easy to do.

I don't agree with your conclusions. I see budgets as funding Cost-Deficits and Cost-Benefits. We need a Congress which funds the latter, and shit cans the former.

Actually, you will find you and I are in perfect agreement. See post 44 in this topic.

It's been a while since I read IKE's Farewell Address, I suspect most of those members of the USMB have no clue of its meaning, thus, for them and our country, see this:

Our Documents - Transcript of President Dwight D. Eisenhower's Farewell Address (1961)

From the link:

"Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small,there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research-these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we which to travel.

"But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs-balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage-balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between action of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration."

IMO IKE was prophetic, and saw the future in which we reside, the chaos of imbalance and frustration; it's time for all of us, Pols and citizens to listen to President Eisenhower from the grave.

There's a typo in that transcript.

Nevertheless, those particular paragraphs you quoted by Ike appear to be heavily influenced by Hayek's The Road To Serfdom. A book I have quoted many times on this forum.

I agree. I have not read, The Road to Serfdom, but I'll see if it is in the library and maybe it'll be an E-Book.

 

[JBvM]

Yes, and CEO's like Henry Ford own companies like Facebook and Twitter and YouTube who actively censor conservative speech currently.

conspiracy theory

Putin made me do it, but only because Kav raped your daughter.

I bet Trump jerks off thinking of his own daughter. He has admitted he sees his own daughter as hot stuff, as a piece of ass, he'd date her

 

[JBvM]

I have not read, The Road to Serfdom, but I'll see if it is in the library and maybe it'll be an E-Book.

It will be a road to imbecility.

 

[Votto]

Yes, and CEO's like Henry Ford own companies like Facebook and Twitter and YouTube who actively censor conservative speech currently.

conspiracy theory

Putin made me do it, but only because Kav raped your daughter.

I bet Trump jerks off thinking of his own daughter. He has admitted he sees his own daughter as hot stuff, as a piece of ass, he'd date her

Don't forget Russian hooker urinating on him.

Follow the talking points please.

 

[DustyInfinity]

I love how you call tax cuts 'tax cut economics.' The deficit increases when we cut taxes, wow. The deficit goes up when we increase taxes too. We are rubes because we don't believe handing the government more money will make a dent in the debt you care so much about? Why in the name of Magic Unicorns would we want to pay the government more money when it won't solve the problem you are worried about. If it won't dent the debt because of a constant spending problem, it doesn't make sense to keep pouring money down the hole. It is never going to fill up. No arguing the debt is horrible, so cut the spending or you are wasting our time and money.

 

[Votto]

I have not read, The Road to Serfdom, but I'll see if it is in the library and maybe it'll be an E-Book.

It will be a road to imbecility.

In the former USSR those found with the book "The Road to Serfdom", where rounded up and shot.

 

[JBvM]

I have not read, The Road to Serfdom, but I'll see if it is in the library and maybe it'll be an E-Book.

It will be a road to imbecility.

In the former USSR those found with the book "The Road to Serfdom", where rounded up and shot.

So? What's your point?

LOL

 

[JBvM]

I bet Trump jerks off thinking of his own daughter. He has admitted he sees his own daughter as hot stuff, as a piece of ass, he'd date her

Don't forget Russian hooker urinating on him.

Follow the talking points please.

actually, Trump paid prostitutes to piss on a bed the Obama's were said to have slept in..
Smacks of reality with Trump's hatred of Obama

try keeping your imbecilities straight

 

[danielpalos]

The only way we will grow our economy at a healthy rate is to bring in a lot of immigrants. Another fact kept from pseudocons by their propagandists.

Our birth rate is now below 2. It is at a 30 year low.

To grow an economy, you have to grow your population. Our birth rate is below the replacement rate.

So...we need immigrants. A lot of them.

That's what made America great in the past. That's what will make us great again.

So let me get this straight, the US needs more people so they should bring in strangers from another country rather than choose to raise their own offspring by aborting them by the millions?

Sounds about right.

Red herrings only, but insist, learning how to fish is important, right wingers?

Unfilled jobs cost the U.S. economy $160 billion a year

Red herring? But I thought Americans needed more people.

To date, over 50 million have been aborted since Roe vs. Wade. My guess is that that number is much higher.

And guess the number one reason mothers kill their offspring. It's because of financial concerns because kids are expensive and time consuming.

Then in their next breath, after murdering their child these liberal dead heads will advocate millions of uneducated illegal immigrants to come in and go on welfare that cost the US hundreds of billions of dollars a year?

The pitiful aspect of all this is that those half wit dead headed liberals are probably happier with darker skinned people in the country rather than the white skin they have and seem to detest.

Sick bunch.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, instead of means tested welfare, would be an improvement. The right wing doesn't like it, Because the Poor may benefit.

Is forcing people to only work for a certain amount of money a good thing?

So let's say I'm poor and want a job and am willing to work for below minimum wage. Is it better not to be making any money than to make the money you sneer at? I don't see the logic. They should have that freedom until something better comes along. No one is holding a gun to their head, and society benefits as well.

There are many assumptions here. You are assuming that the person earning the money has "X" number of expenditures to pay when maybe they do not. Take a high school student or college student or retired person. They may not need all that money to pay a mortgage/rent and car. What they earn is mad money for them, more than for the person on minimum wage who has no mad money and can't often pay for what they do need.

Increasing wages only increases costs. It's like chasing your tail and sends jobs overseas.

Why is it Progs are so bent out of shape about jobs going over seas but have no problem with illegals coming in to take jobs from Americans?

Again, the looney Left is insane.

Yes, as long as the right wing is going to complain about social services.
Even the dollar menu, won't double.

 

[Jerico]

We've all heard the pseudocon Rube Herd parrot the meme that "tax cuts increase revenues". They get this meme from their propagandists and then repeat it unthinkingly.

Maybe to you.

First, I want to apologize that I cannot yet post links. I had to remove them. Instead I gave hints on what to search for. Just please note that I did actually source my statements. This forum just doesn't trust me yet as I'm new.

Let's talk about Keynes for a minute. As one will surmise, I speak of Keynesian economics negatively, but not because his economics is abjectly terrible, but because like the term "liberal" today, it has been bastardized into something precisely the opposite of that which it is meant to be.

Keynesian economics is about using an invisible hand to stabilize markets which are already under invisible influence. Most of K's work revolved around speculative trading which could produce wealth without value, thus creating spikes in the natural cycle of economic recessions and progressions. To that end, he proposed the use of financial tools as buffers to help smooth out these anomalous shifts.


His philosophy was built upon the errors of the Great Depression. It was caused by abstract wealth being used to influence value. People bought and sold stocks on margins. It became this huge thing to trade on mathematical whim rather than cold hard cash or material value. Unfortunately, there were consequences to fucking with nature. Gravity eventually caught up with that make believe dream bubble of wealth .

He realized that abstract wealth was dangerous, but unavoidable. Rather than try to eliminate it, he sought to counter it. Since Abstract wealth isn't "capitalistic" he wasn't concerned with countering it capitalistically. He was absolutely pro capitalism though. His economic policies were never meant to be used heavy handed, then again, he never intended for abstract wealth to become the majority of wealth either.

The Keynesian's of today are just socialists. They consider more spending to be more production. This is NOT what Keynesian economics is all about. He was a capitalist.
(look up the definition of Keynesian economics) His entire angle was on that of optimizations, not public control. His aim was to utilize policy to promote (not falsify) free market demand. In other words, he was merely a proponent of tweaking the pure Laissez-faire of the time.

(wikipedia laisses-faire)

I think the reason the left has wet dreams about him is because a) They think he is a socialist just because modern day proponents totally bastardized his theories, and b) because he was gay.

I can totally see b considering the extreme virtue signalling going on today, but a is trickier. I think having so many administrations (Democrat and Republican) use Keynesian ideas as a scapegoat for their carte blanche economic fuckery is why people no longer realize the original intent behind it.

There are two key facts which expose the lie hidden in that meme. First, the obvious fact is that if you lower tax rates all the way to zero, you have zero revenues. So at some point, tax cuts fail to increase revenues.

By that logic, reducing spending to zero would no longer increase debt to begin with. Which is superior as an extreme?

Reducing revenue does not increase debt. Only spending does.

The second fact is one which their propagandists deliberately keep from the rubes. This is a deliberate omission, and therefore a deliberately crafted lie. And that fact is that revenues have also increased after a tax INCREASE.

This whole line of approach is a straw man, but I can hardly doubt you for doing it because the Republicans are so good at setting themselves up for strawman arguments- Trump often as well.

What is wrong about what you say, though, is that you're looking at this from the government perspective only. You have an unstated premise which is that government spending is good and indicates a healthy economy. This is a non sequitur.

Government revenue will only go up from a tax decrease if the aggregate wealth generated goes up disproportionately to the reduction in revenue. Likewise, it will only go up after a tax raise if the reduction in aggregate free market wealth doesn't fall equally so. In either case, it is not an all or nothing phenomena. Different industries are affected in different ways.

What you cannot argue, however, is that wealth is shifting away from the government and back into the hands of the people. Only a tax cut will do that. This is an absolute boon if you are anything but a bureaucrat.

See for yourself. Here is a history of tax rates

Notice how tax rates increased under Bill Clinton in 1993. The top marginal rate increased from 31 percent to 39.6 percent, and stayed that way until 2001.

Now here is a history of federal revenues:

Again, what is the point of this? Are you trying to suggest that government revenue is good? How about they spend money more efficiently? Why is money goin into the government so important, but the money going out inconsequential? Debt is built from spending, not revenue. A government that makes zero dollars and spends zero dollars generates no debt. Spending is entirely the source of debt.

Notice how tax revenues INCREASED after the tax rates went UP a whopping 8.6 points:


FY 1991 - $1.05 trillion.
FY 1992 - $1.09 trillion.
FY 1993 - $1.15 trillion.
FY 1994 - $1.26 trillion.
FY 1995 - $1.35 trillion.
FY 1996 - $1.45 trillion.
FY 1997 - $1.58 trillion.
FY 1998 - $1.72 trillion.
FY 1999 - $1.82 trillion.
FY 2000 - $2.03 trillion

Yeah, and meanwhile the middle class was raped to death for it. The last 40 years has been an economic red wedding for low income and middle income earners.

Just a few years after Clinton's tax increase, federal revenues had DOUBLED!!!

And after the Bush tax cut expired on the top marginal rate in 2013, federal revenues continued to increase:

FY 2012 - $2.45 trillion.
FY 2013 - $2.77 trillion.
FY 2014 - $3.02 trillion.
FY 2015 - $3.25 trillion.
FY 2016 - $3.27 trillion.
FY 2017 - $3.32 trillion.

By the way, job growth exploded during the higher tax Clinton years. 30 million jobs in 8 years, with less than 5 percent unemployment.

So the next time you are crowing about the current tax rate increasing revenues, you should know your propagandists are counting on you not looking beyond the carefully framed numbers they present to your dumb ass.

Jobs are nebulous without context. Clinton created a lot of jobs by expanding on government work force. He did this as a concession to the fact that he cut welfare. Rather than just handing people money, he simply umbrella'd them under the government's wing. So basically he put welfare artists to work instead of being on welfare ( a good first step actually) and raised taxes. Together this gave quite an illusion of rapid financial development, but again, it was Illusory (except for getting people off of welfare).


Let's get one thing straight. Clinton's short term tactics for political points looked good on paper, but they are also directly attributed to the economic recession of 2008 that people like to incorrectly credit Bush for. His democrat congress gave us the toxic loan standards which precipitated the housing crash.

Wiki subprime mortgage crisis.

Clinton wasn't a terrible Head of State in managerial matters, but he knew that he was playing hot potato with the economy on housing. He totally fucked the banks and used Keynesian principles as his scapegoat. Turns out giving free houses away works right up until the loans come due and can't be paid. Then the whole country burns to the ground. Who would have thought?

Obama used the same playbook. His entire presidency was about spending shit tons of cash under the guise of Keynesian policy to make the GDP have the appearance of growth. Where it failed, he simply blamed his predecessor, and where Trump succeeds, he tries to take credit. Really though, if you want to buy into that delayed economy garbage, that means Clinton's economy belongs to Reagan and Bush Jr and any Blunders Bush could accurately be accused of would fall under Clinton. Pick whichever you want, but please, be consistent.

The reason why we can accurately blame Clinton for what happened at the end of Bush's two terms is because we can actually trace back to policy. Timing is a bitch, it turns out. Obama did nothing though that he could take credit for under Trump. His last few years were almost completely ignorant of the economy itself. Neither the media, nor his constituents in congress put any attention on the terrible state of the economy.



By modern day "Keynesian" standards, Bush was the (2nd)best president ever. He spent money like it was going out of style. Only Obama was a better Keynesian (or is it Kenyan? ) than him. Surely to a Keynesian, debt is gold so don't be so quick to throw Bush under the bus. It's also somewhat strange that you would credit Clinton, considering that much of what he did wasn't "Keynesian" in nature. In fact, only his serious financial blunders were so and even then, they are just the modern day bastardization of it.

Because while your pseudocon propagandists are crowing about revenues, they are counting on you not noticing that despite increased revenues, your party and your President are EXPLODING our deficits!

This is such a straw man. Who is it that has so much clout as to speak for all conservatives about the virtues of lower taxes begetting more revenue? Who said conservatives care about government revenue? Many I know are ready for the government to be abolished let alone pissing on about it's revenue. It's spending we all care about because spending is the problem- not revenue. You can double what the government takes in, they'll still find a way to go over budget.

If you're so worried about debt, let's reduce government spending to zero. Something tells me you were totally quiet while Obama doubled our debt in just 8 years.

It's called misdirection. A classic magician's trick to fool the rubes.

No, it's called a straw man. Liberals are very good at creating them.

Trump is on track to blow Obama's debt record wide open. And after whining and whining and whining and whining non-stop for eight years about Obama's spending, your propagandists have gone dark.

And so have you.

The stench of hypocrisy is all over you.

Pot calling the kettle black. I've seen no conservatives who are happy with current spending. I also don't see why you're so upset about it considering you love the idea of more government revenue and more government spending. By your own logic, Trump should be your favorite president if what you say is true!

Trump may be spending a lot, but he's also making sure that the citizens are regaining the wealth that has been robbed from them for 30 + years. He's doing his best to reduce spending, but you either don't know that or you just don't care. It's all about bashing Trump because he's orange or something.

If you want to give Obama credit for Trump's economy, you have to admit it is Obama's government still, and that means it's Obama's spending. Be consistent ffs.

Seriously, you people should drink your own medicine. Hopefully Republicans dominate the midterms. Once the obstructionist democrats have no more power, maybe we can fix this spending issue finally. As it stands, there's a barely visible majority of Republicans, and some of them are just closet democrats anyways. If you care so much about spending, you should be helping us get rid of the democrats so we can actually achieve what you claim to want. Atleast, what I think that you want. I can't tell. You gush over increased government revenue, which is only useful if spent, yet you criticize Trump for spending as much as Obama? Make up your mind!

 

[danielpalos]

By that logic, reducing spending to zero would no longer increase debt to begin with. Which is superior as an extreme?

Reducing revenue does not increase debt. Only spending does.

The hypocrisy is the vacuum of special pleading and the cognitive disconnect between revenue and spending.

Only the right wing believes they are not, connected.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It turns out all those corporations who received a big cash windfall from their tax cuts used that money to do stock buybacks instead of trickling it down to their workers.

That's awful!!
I hate it when my stocks increase in price.

Stocks are below where they were in January...

Which ones?

Most of them.

Not sure if you're lying or ignorant.
I am sure that you're wrong.
Our stock market is higher now than it was in January.

It is below the highs of January....

You're wrong.