Didn't Conservatives staple teabags to their faces because of this very thing?

[LV426]

Clinton also took office following a recession and the economy recovered

WHY did the economy recover and HOW did it recover?

It wasn't just magic.

It was a combination of two things; tax increases and spending increases.

Both of which Conservatives said at the time would result in a recession. What happened instead? The longest period of sustained economic growth since the 1950's, possibly ever.

thee economy recovered and then went into another recession in 2001.

Let's talk about that 2001 recession, shall we?

1. The 2001 recession was caused by the collapse of the dotcom market which was inflated by...wait for it...TAX CUTS.

2. The 2001 recession lasted just two quarters.

3. The 2001 recession was the weakest recession in a generation; so weak that GDP growth for 2001 (with this recession AND 9/11) was still positive!

4. The Conservative response to the recession caused by tax cuts was to pass even larger tax cuts that erased a surplus and led to 4 record deficits over the next 8 years that nearly doubled the debt.

5. The recession didn't start in 2001 until almost two months after Bush was inaugurated.

None of these presidents had policies that were very different or that caused the recession or recovery.

This is fantasy thinking. Of course the policies of the President cause recessions and recovery. In fact, Bush's own Working Group on Financial Markets put the blame of the subprime collapse on Bush's regulators ceasing the enforcement of lending standards beginning in 2004 and continuing through 2007. Regulators work for the Executive Branch.

Some blame Clinton's financial deregulation for the 2008 recession but that is as simplistic as those who blame Bush.

Who are the "some"? The people actively trying to avoid accountability for their policies creating and inflating a subprime bubble.

Nothing Clinton did caused Bush's regulators to suddenly stop enforcing lending standards on subprime loans beginning in 2004.

 

[LV426]

Laziness is making generalizations that have no support.

Which is exactly what "pox on both houses" "both sides are the same" false equivalence is all about.

You have simply given up.

 

[LV426]

. I never said both sides are the same--I said they use the same tactics because they both hire campaign and media consultants who use the same marketing methods

These two statements contradict each other.

"I am not saying both sides are the same, but both sides are the same."

To know that I had to at least study both sides

STOP LYING TO ME, FLASH.

You haven't "studied" anything.

Instead, you've been so lazy that you have to "both sides" your way through this debate because otherwise, you'd have to do some actual work that would result in you having to come down on a side, and that is disruptive to the character you've created and coddled here.

 

[LV426]

You just adopt one side as good and the other as evil.

The side with Nazis on it is always the evil side.

Unless you are going to argue the virtue of Nazis...?

 

[LV426]

At least you understand these are caused by the idiotic policies of the democrat party

You're the ones who passed the Russia Tax Cut that grew the deficit by 88% and created a record monthly deficit last month.]

You also predicted 3% growth and that it would pay for itself.

We always have to clean up after you economic slobs

No Republican President in the last 40 years has left office with a smaller deficit than the one they inherited.

No Republican President in the last 40 years has left office with an economy that wasn't either in recession or in dire need of bailout.

 

[Truth Detector]

Do you see yourself as an attack dog?

Not at all; can you see what a whiny, low IQ dumb fuck you are?

I see you as a little chihuahua biting and barking annoyingly at the heals of everyone who walks by!

You should buy a mirror.

You may want to back off of your personal insults of others whose opinions don't agree with yours.

You may want to try to extract your head from your ass snowflake.

You've lost your message and your influence with others when you lose your ability to to be civil and just become a nuisance and troll to everyone else!

Thread trolling dumbass thinks people on this forum can be influenced. Dear dumb fuck; you lack the IQ it would take to even comprehend the OBVIOUS.

Now get back to your padded cell and take your meds snowflake.

 

[Truth Detector]

WHY did the economy recover and HOW did it recover?

It wasn't just magic.

It was a combination of two things; tax increases and spending increases.

Both of which Conservatives said at the time would result in a recession. What happened instead? The longest period of sustained economic growth since the 1950's, possibly ever.

Let's talk about that 2001 recession, shall we?

1. The 2001 recession was caused by the collapse of the dotcom market which was inflated by...wait for it...TAX CUTS.

2. The 2001 recession lasted just two quarters.

3. The 2001 recession was the weakest recession in a generation; so weak that GDP growth for 2001 (with this recession AND 9/11) was still positive!

4. The Conservative response to the recession caused by tax cuts was to pass even larger tax cuts that erased a surplus and led to 4 record deficits over the next 8 years that nearly doubled the debt.

5. The recession didn't start in 2001 until almost two months after Bush was inaugurated.

This is fantasy thinking. Of course the policies of the President cause recessions and recovery. In fact, Bush's own Working Group on Financial Markets put the blame of the subprime collapse on Bush's regulators ceasing the enforcement of lending standards beginning in 2004 and continuing through 2007. Regulators work for the Executive Branch.

Who are the "some"? The people actively trying to avoid accountability for their policies creating and inflating a subprime bubble.

Nothing Clinton did caused Bush's regulators to suddenly stop enforcing lending standards on subprime loans beginning in 2004.

Same old moronic lie, different day. Tax cuts have NEVER led to a recession or lower revenue you simple minded asshat.

Simply repeating the same lies over and over again no matter how many times they are disproved paints you as a low IQ moron on steroids. You wear that title well.

Since the Kennedy tax cuts, the Reagan tax cuts, the Clinton Tax cuts and the Bush tax cuts, revenues have risen by (1965 = 116.8 billion; 2017 = 3,316.2 billion) 2,839%. How did tax cuts reduce revenue?

Spending during the same time period has risen by 3,369%. I would submit that if spending is rising faster than revenue, SPENDING is the problem and NOT revenues. Dumb fuck.

I also am tired of you lying about the effect of tax cuts:

The United States Revenue Act of 1964 signed into law on February 26, 1964. Revenue in 1964 was 112.6 Billion. Revenue in 1965 was 116.8 billion. 116.8 is greater than 112.6. In 1966 it was 130.8 billion. 130.8 is greater than 116.8. By 1969 revenues had increased to 186.9 billion. That is an increase of 166%. The tax reductions did NOT result in lower revenue.

The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 was signed into law August 13, 1981. Revenue in 1981 was 599.3 billion. Revenue in 1982 was 617.8 billion. 617.8 is greater than 599.3.
By 1985 revenues had increased to 734 billion. That is an increase of 122.5%. The tax reductions did NOT result in lower revenue.

Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA) was signed into law on October 22, 1986. Revenue that year was 769.2 billion. Revenue in 1987 was 854.3 billion. 854.3 is greater than 769.2. In 1988 it was 909.2 billion. 909.2 is greater than 769.2. By 1990 revenue had grown to 1,032 billion. That is an increase of 134%. The tax reductions did NOT result in lower revenue.

The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 was enacted August 5, 1997. Revenue that year was 1,579.2 billion. Revenue in 1998 was 1,721.7 billion. 1,721.7 is greater than 1,579.2. In 1999 revenue was 1,827.5 billion. 1,827.5 is greater than 1,721.7. By 2000 revenue had grown to 2,025.2 billion. That is an increase of 128%. The tax reductions did NOT result in lower revenue.

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 was signed into law 7 June 2001. Revenue that year was 1,991.1 billion.

The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 was signed into law May 28, 2003. Revenue that year was 1,782.3 billion. Revenue in 2004 was 1,880.1 billion. Revenue in 2005 was 2,153.6 billion. 2,153.6 is greater than 1,991.1. Revenue by 2007 had grown to 2,568.0 billion. 2,568.0 is greater than 1,991.1. That is an increase of 129%. The tax reductions did NOT result in lower revenue.

Do everyone a favor and just STFU.

 

[Monad Portal]

These two statements contradict each other.

"I am not saying both sides are the same, but both sides are the same."




STOP LYING TO ME, FLASH.

You haven't "studied" anything.

Instead, you've been so lazy that you have to "both sides" your way through this debate because otherwise, you'd have to do some actual work that would result in you having to come down on a side, and that is disruptive to the character you've created and coddled here.

so all sides of a war are the same because they all use weapons. stop being a dumb cunt. you're not clever.

 

[LV426]

so all sides of a war are the same because they all use weapons.stop being a dumb cunt. you're not clever.

I'm not the one saying that. Pay attention to the thread.

 

[Flash]

The side with Nazis on it is always the evil side.

Unless you are going to argue the virtue of Nazis...?

Nazis, fascists, and communists make up the evil side.

 

[Flash]

These two statements contradict each other.

"I am not saying both sides are the same, but both sides are the same."

STOP LYING TO ME, FLASH.

You haven't "studied" anything.

Instead, you've been so lazy that you have to "both sides" your way through this debate because otherwise, you'd have to do some actual work that would result in you having to come down on a side, and that is disruptive to the character you've created and coddled here.

The statements are not contradictory unless you take the simplistic black/white approach and think using similar tactics and techniques is the same thing as having the same policies.

I have spent much more time studying the issues than you which is obvious from your simplistic generalizations putting everything in dichotomous categorizations and using nothing but emotion and anger to make decisions. You don't have to study anything since you just follow the Democratic line.

 

[reagansghost]

The statements are not contradictory unless you take the simplistic black/white approach and think using similar tactics and techniques is the same thing as having the same policies.

I have spent much more time studying the issues than you which is obvious from your simplistic generalizations putting everything in dichotomous categorizations and using nothing but emotion and anger to make decisions. You don't have to study anything since you just follow the Democratic line.

I'll you look cute wearing that Lipton tea bag lol

 

[Flash]

Which is exactly what "pox on both houses" "both sides are the same" false equivalence is all about.

You have simply given up.

Another simplistic generalization on your part. I never said anything like a "pox on both houses." To say the two parties use the same techniques and methods is not necessarily a criticism. They use the same marketing techniques because they work. People choose a group identify and then will believe anything their side says and naively think their side is right, moral, and more intelligent.

If those techniques work then of course everybody is going to use them--they use what wins. You fall for the Democratic line and Republicans fall for the line put out by their party. They appeal to our emotions and pseudo-intellectualism and get our votes and money. Many cannot see this and follow the party line.

Most of the posters on JPP forum already know the opinions of the liberal/conservative posters on every issue when it first appears. We know whether they will think Kavanaugh or Ford was telling the truth, whether they will attack or defend Smollett for his actions, and whether they think Trump committed any crimes. Since we already know what their opinions will be we also know those opinions were based on blind partisan loyalty rather than any rational thinking.

 

[Flash]

WHY did the economy recover and HOW did it recover?

It wasn't just magic.

It was a combination of two things; tax increases and spending increases.

It wasn't magic. It is called the economic cycle and it always recovers. Spending as a percent of the GDP actually declined under Clinton putting it below the average spending.

 

[Flash]

1. The stimulus COnservatives said wouldn't recover the economy, except that it did. So Conservatives were what? WRONG.

2. Trump's tax cuts didn't help the economy at all. In fact, revised GDP growth for 2018 was less than GDP growth in 2015 without a tax cut and long after QE and the stimulus had ended

So Flash, a lot of what you're saying is bullshit, disproved by data and facts.

It's bullshit you're trying to spin as "bothsiderist" conventional wisdom but ultimately is completely inaccurate, and belies that laziness that persists in everything you do here.

What was bullshit, my statement that "Obama was helped by a $trillion stimulus"? Your statement that conservatives said the stimulus would not work is irrelevant to my statement. I don't care what conservatives say and it was just a deflection (bad faith) on your part to bring up a straw man argument.

Or, was it my statement that "Trump by the tax cuts but those are temporary"? Unemployment continued to decline, more jobs exist than the number of unemployed people, and the stock market has made big gains.

If you say Trump had nothing to do with those things you are agreeing with my statement that presidents are not responsible for a good or bad economy unless they take stupid steps.

To claim a good economy is always due to raising taxes and increasing spending is contrary to every sane economist.

 

[Flash]

I'll you look cute wearing that Lipton tea bag lol

We are still waiting to see pictures or links to people stapling teabags to their faces.

And what do tea bags have to do with simplistic black and white categorizations of all things political?

 

[LV426]

Nazis, fascists, and communists make up the evil side.

And Conservatives count Nazis and fascists as "very fine people".

 

[LV426]

The statements are not contradictory unless you take the simplistic black/white approach and think using similar tactics and techniques is the same thing as having the same policies.

That's what you're saying, Flash.

You're saying that the policies don't matter because "both sides..."

You're saying they're not the same, then you say they are the same in literally the next sentence.

So, OK, so if they're not the same, then you would agree that liberal economics has more merit than Conservative economics?

 

[LV426]

I have spent much more time studying the issues than you which is obvious from your simplistic generalizations putting everything in dichotomous categorizations and using nothing but emotion and anger to make decisions. You don't have to study anything since you just follow the Democratic line.

I think you've spent all your time trying to craft a way where you can posture that you're above the fray while heaping equal amounts of scorn on "both sides" because you think that elevates you.

Let me be the first to tell you: It doesn't.

 

[Flash]

And Conservatives count Nazis and fascists as "very fine people".

And that is a credible statement? Reverting to the stupid arguments used by liberals and conservatives to make points puts you in the same category. Just repeat what the political pundits, elected officials, and JPP posters have already said and pretend it is a real argument.