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

[LV426]

Agreed. We have already determined both parties are fiscally irresponsible.

How are Democrats "fiscally irresponsible" when Obama was the one who reduced the deficit by about 53%?

Deficit (2009): $1,412.7
Deficit (2017): $665.4
$747.3B Reduction (-53%)

And what do you mean by "fiscally irresponsible"? Because that feels like a goalpost that you'll shift.

 

[midcan5]

Conservative elites lead their snowflakes around by the nose it seems. Deficits only matter if they can be used to keep the snowflakes looking in the other direction. Today the useless tax for the un-needy is making the rich richer and the deficit larger. Trump is happy as he benefited from it per informed sources. But snowflakes on the right have been led so long they think they are thinking. Kinda funny really. Full disclosure, the tax cut was good for us. lol

"This is when the Republican Party set its trap. Meeting in closed sessions at the beginning of the Obama regime, the party of tax cuts for the rich, unfunded wars, and the largest deficit in the history of the country redefined itself. It suddenly became the party of deficit reduction through lean government joined to supreme confidence in unregulated financial and corporate markets. It even opposed the bail out of General Motors and Chrysler, though these actions stopped unemployment from reaching a dangerous tipping point, allowed the two companies time to reconstruct themselves, and enabled them to pay back the loans within two years–-creating one of the most successful bailouts in the history of Euro-American economic life."

http://contemporarycondition.blogspot.com/2011/06/republican-pincer-machine.html


'Trump-GOP Tax Law'

https://americansfortaxfairness.org/issue/trump-benefits-new-trump-gop-tax-law/

 

[LV426]

It is the same thing.

No it's not.

The damage you do with your "bothsiderist" narrative is to elevate and lend credibility to discredited people with bunkum beliefs and ideas.

 

[LV426]

It is only scornful if you disapprove of sleaze

Which you said you are.

So you're giving backhanded compliments/passive insults to scornfully judge both sides as the same all while pretending that is not what you're doing.

You got caught, Flash.

 

[LV426]

If somebody claims Hillary has a child porn ring in a pizza shop or Trump had prostitutes pee on a bed

Here's the difference:

No liberals barged into a hotel, fired shots around the hotel, and threatened the people in the hotel because of what they read on the internet.

 

[LV426]

I am not scornful of it because I acknowledge and recognize tactics that both parties use because their supporters will believe it.

You call it "sleazy", yet that isn't a scornful judgment.

LOL, OK Flash.

 

[LV426]

Exactly what I said. They use the same tactics to accomplish different policy goals.

The same tactics, how so?

Democrats enlisted the help of Russia to win elections?

When did they do that?

 

[LV426]

If one is using the filibuster to block legislation the party complains it is immoral because it is thwarting the will of the majority

So filibustering is a "sleazy" tactic?

I agree the Filibuster should be removed.

When they use that same filibuster to block legislation they oppose the defend it as protecting minority rights.

So how is that a "sleazy" tactic?

 

[LV426]

Which is an indication of profligate democrat spending that requires periodic reality checks from the adults in the room.

No, it plainly means Conservative policy always increases the deficit.

 

[LV426]

But he kept the middle class tax cut which eliminated federal income taxes for a large percentage of the bottom 40%.

But he let the tax cuts for the wealthy expire at the end of 2012.

For some reason, you didn't mention that. HOW COME? BAD FAITH???

So what happened to the deficit then? Let's see:

2011: $1,299.6 Deficit
2012: $1,087.0 Deficit (-16%)
2013 (First year of Expired Bush Tax Cuts for the rich): $679.5 deficit (-38%)

So at the end of 2012, when Obama let the Bush Tax Cuts for the rich expire, the deficit was reduced by 38%.

That is the largest deficit reduction ever, both in gross dollars and as a percentage.

If he didn't think those tax cuts were good why didn't he let those expire?

Because of poor wage growth for the bottom 99% following the recession, where the majority of gains went to the top 1%.

 

[LV426]

Republicans love them some runaway gubmint spending

I'm old enough to remember Conservatives stapling teabags to their faces because of how worked up they got over deficit spending.

 

[Flash]

But he let the tax cuts for the wealthy expire at the end of 2012.

For some reason, you didn't mention that. HOW COME? BAD FAITH???

So what happened to the deficit then? Let's see:

2011: $1,299.6 Deficit
2012: $1,087.0 Deficit (-16%)
2013 (First year of Expired Bush Tax Cuts for the rich): $679.5 deficit (-38%)

So at the end of 2012, when Obama let the Bush Tax Cuts for the rich expire, the deficit was reduced by 38%.

That is the largest deficit reduction ever, both in gross dollars and as a percentage.

Because of poor wage growth for the bottom 99% following the recession, where the majority of gains went to the top 1%.

As usual, you missed the point. Obama obviously thought a tax cut for the bottom 99% was good policy and it reduced the deficit. So, tax cuts are obviously useful if they are applied to the bottom 99%. So, tax cuts are not bad and do cause revenue to rise.

And I did mention it when I said he extended the "middle class tax cut which eliminated federal income taxes for a large percentage of the bottom 40%."

So, it is bad faith on your part to leave out the most important part of my post.

 

[LV426]

As usual, you missed the point. Obama obviously thought a tax cut for the bottom 99% was good policy and it reduced the deficit.

The policy had already been in place since 2003, what Obama did was let the top tax cuts expire.

At the time, we were told by Conservatives doing so would lead to the sky falling.

Of course, we were told wrong.

 

[LV426]

So, tax cuts are obviously useful if they are applied to the bottom 99%. So, tax cuts are not bad and do cause revenue to rise

Explain how.

Go ahead.

Explain how the tax cuts, that had been in effect since 2003, caused the deficit to decrease in 2013?

 

[LV426]

So, tax cuts are obviously useful if they are applied to the bottom 99%. So, tax cuts are not bad and do cause revenue to rise

Explain how.

Go ahead.

Explain how the tax cuts, that had been in effect since 2001, caused the deficit to decrease in 2013?

 

[LV426]

And I did mention it when I said he extended the "middle class tax cut which eliminated federal income taxes for a large percentage of the bottom 40%."

Extended it.

He didn't start it.

It had already been in effect for 12 years.

What you need to show is how those tax cuts from 2001 caused revenue to rise in 2013.

I don't think you can show that.

 

[Flash]

The policy had already been in place since 2003, what Obama did was let the top tax cuts expire.

At the time, we were told by Conservatives doing so would lead to the sky falling.

Of course, we were told wrong.

True. And liberals claimed the tax cut was bad when it passed, but then Obama extended it for the bottom 99%. They must not have thought it was so bad after all if they extended it. Or, they did not have the guts to raise taxes on 99% of Americans.

 

[LV426]

So, it is bad faith on your part to leave out the most important part of my post.

Nope, Flash.

The problem is you are crediting the tax cuts for the 99% to the reduction of the deficit that happened in 2013. How did they do that? Show your work.

 

[LV426]

True. And liberals claimed the tax cut was bad when it passed, but then Obama extended it for the bottom 99%

Did they say the tax cut was bad, or did they say the tax cut for the rich was bad?

Do you honestly believe that the Bush Tax Cuts were a net benefit for the middle class?

If so, how do you reconcile this chart:



From the looks of it, the Bush Tax Cuts merely plunged the nation into a higher level of debt, both federally and individually.

 

[Flash]

Did they say the tax cut was bad, or did they say the tax cut for the rich was bad?

Do you honestly believe that the Bush Tax Cuts were a net benefit for the middle class?

If so, how do you reconcile this chart:

View attachment 9268

From the looks of it, the Bush Tax Cuts merely plunged the nation into a higher level of debt, both federally and individually.

A tax cut made people save less and go farther in debt? How does that work?

Think how little they would save and be even farther in debt if they had less income!!

It is very bad faith on your part to ignore the fact that the federal debt was affected by the recession which was not caused by the tax cut.