• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP tax cut not why economy is booming

Conservative said:
Suggest you take a civics class to understand who controls the purse strings and legislative process. You want to give the President credit for cutting spending so tell me did the Republican Congress Cut or approve Clinton Budgets?? Did the Republican Congress in 15-16 approve or cut Obama's budgets? It does appear that you have never taken a civics or economics class but buy what the media throws at you.
Click to expand...

I display my education by documenting my assertions.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
It certainly is interesting how the radical left always finds something negative to complain about especially when it comes to people keeping more of what they earn. Not knowing the components of GDP along with a lack of basic civics/economics understanding is prevalent in this forum as we may have the most poorly informed leftwing voters I have ever encountered. Figure out what the components are of GDP and then ask yourself how having more spendable income affects those components? Anyone who says that tax cuts don't affect economic activity are brainwashed by the radical left who loves making a fool out of others including their own supporters
Click to expand...

I have demonstrated that at least since 1921, under Democratic leadership there has usually been more economic growth, more growth in the job market, and even the stock market. To document my assertions I have posted data from the United States Department of Commerce, and The Wall Street Journal.

Please document your assertions. Demonstrate some of this superior education you claim for yourself.
 
SmartCat said:
I display my education by documenting my assertions.
Click to expand...

Yep, that seems to be your problem, your assertions are not supported by the official data from bea.gov, bls.gov and treasury.org. Please give them a call and tell them their data is wrong
 
SmartCat said:
I have demonstrated that at least since 1921, under Democratic leadership there has usually been more economic growth, more growth in the job market, and even the stock market. To document my assertions I have posted data from the United States Department of Commerce, and The Wall Street Journal.

Please document your assertions. Demonstrate some of this superior education you claim for yourself.
Click to expand...

Yep, that is what you believe however Clinton had a GOP Congress, Bush only had a GOP Congress 2004-06 but did generate 4.5 trillion added to the GDP. What you continue to prove is you are incapable of doing any research and I know how that will affect you in the future
 
Conservative said:
That is true and you also show your right to be jealous and envy what someone else has now wanting some of what you never were entitled to. You are a perfect example of the problems our education system today has created. You continue to buy rhetoric and ignore results which is why you support Sanders. You know nothing about him or his background but like what he says which is contrary to the multi millionaire he and his wife have become
Click to expand...

Did Bernie Sanders become rich dishonestly? Please explain. Also, what about Sanders and his background would change my support for him?
 
Conservative said:
Yep, that is what you believe however Clinton had a GOP Congress, Bush only had a GOP Congress 2004-06 but did generate 4.5 trillion added to the GDP. What you continue to prove is you are incapable of doing any research and I know how that will affect you in the future
Click to expand...

I have posted my research. You have not. The economic history of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first century demonstrates that the economy usually performs better when Democrats are in charge. Even The Wall Street Journal agrees with me.
 
Conservative said:
Yep, that seems to be your problem, your assertions are not supported by the official data from bea.gov, bls.gov and treasury.org. Please give them a call and tell them their data is wrong
Click to expand...

My assertions are documented by the United States Department of Commerce and by The Wall Street Journal. If the organizations you list contradict these, demonstrate it.
 
MTAtech said:
As I eluded to in a previous post, reality isn't decided by popular opinion or wishful thinking. Reality happens regardless of what you want. Economists don't set forecasts on what they want to happen. Through models of economics and math they try to determine what will happen.

In this instance, economic experts are forecasting growth that isn't much different than the growth experienced under Obama, which is contrary to the "stable genius" who said 4, 5, or 6%. Which forecast would you risk your house on?

In the context of tax-cuts, if growth ends up pretty much like what we have been having, what excuse for tax-cut boost the economy, will you tell us?
Click to expand...

You do know that ellude means to avoid, evade or escape? But then it makes even more sense, so well done, hat tip. Allude
to hint at, was probably more what you were looking for.

Not to get in too too the weeds as regards the booming economy, if nothing else it just feels better. Trashed talked by the rest and the former, we got a new coach who is standing up, cheering for our team. Finally. There is no shame in wanting to fight as a team for our team. The balance sheet reads we are a very prosperous land where people strive to come, even if only illegally to our country. We are powerful, we are literate, yet too often are educated poorly, an adult fault, not a deficit caused by our children...We should be proud as we are more generous and have given much more positive to the world than removed.

There is an economic, a possibly probably uncalcuably constructive and affirming good to a team playing as a team and then rewarded by achieving. Confident enough that we dont have to be top in every category...but to have confidence in ourselves is the only real battle, and its one we have mainly with ourselves.

You and I, as exampled here.

During slendermantime there was always that distant foreboding, that fluttery fleeting always returning angst... Now? a growing buzz, hummming whirrr of excitement...a hey babe, whats say we bop down and listen to some live music, we can afford, hey maybe even some dancing...hey now kinda moment. We deserve a shot at something that corny, surely.

Use the gift, its why its given.
 
SmartCat said:
I have posted my research. You have not. The economic history of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first century demonstrates that the economy usually performs better when Democrats are in charge. Even The Wall Street Journal agrees with me.
Click to expand...

Yeah, might be because that is precisely when Republican legislators have mass epiphanies, all figure out they better by god get up off their lazy...duffs, stop the bilateral party give aways going viral under a "too giving" executive branch creating tax hikes starting the conga line of falling dominoes resulting in their getting voted out at the end of that long squiggly line. Representatives in the real near future.

Makes a difference in motivation, velocity and direction of legislation.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
You do know that ellude means to avoid, evade or escape? But then it makes even more sense, so well done, hat tip. Allude
to hint at, was probably more what you were looking for.

Not to get in too too the weeds as regards the booming economy, if nothing else it just feels better. Trashed talked by the rest and the former, we got a new coach who is standing up, cheering for our team. Finally. There is no shame in wanting to fight as a team for our team. The balance sheet reads we are a very prosperous land where people strive to come, even if only illegally to our country. We are powerful, we are literate, yet too often are educated poorly, an adult fault, not a deficit caused by our children...We should be proud as we are more generous and have given much more positive to the world than removed.

There is an economic, a possibly probably uncalcuably constructive and affirming good to a team playing as a team and then rewarded by achieving. Confident enough that we dont have to be top in every category...but to have confidence in ourselves is the only real battle, and its one we have mainly with ourselves.

You and I, as exampled here.

During slendermantime there was always that distant foreboding, that fluttery fleeting always returning angst... Now? a growing buzz, hummming whirrr of excitement...a hey babe, whats say we bop down and listen to some live music, we can afford, hey maybe even some dancing...hey now kinda moment. We deserve a shot at something that corny, surely.

Use the gift, its why its given.
Click to expand...
Confidence Fairies.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
I have much confidence in ferries, very little in Fairies.
Click to expand...
This why it isn't a good idea for you to"get into the (macro)economic weeds". You really don't want to get into the why of the sluggish recovery (hint:Congress) of the black guy or just how fragile this current period is. You are trying to relive some "Morning in America" myth, which was not as great as some want to insist. Sure, things have improved for those at the top, but even here (PHX) in a very active area, I am amazed at the number of homeless and the palpable tension at the supermarkets. The right should be relaxing a bit if things are a good as you want to argue, but even here at this forum I see they are more agitated. That is not a sign of confidence.
 
SmartCat said:
My assertions are documented by the United States Department of Commerce and by The Wall Street Journal. If the organizations you list contradict these, demonstrate it.
Click to expand...

That is like having the Chamber of Commerce tell the community an estimate as to what is in your bank account. Doesn't seem like a very difficult concept to understand except apparently for you. Your bank knows what you have in your account, what you spend, and what you take in. The same holds true of the Treasury so show me Treasury data supporting your claim that tax cuts CUT revenue?? Show me any official verifiable data that people would spend the same amount of money if they had higher taxes and less spendable income. You can't and you have no idea what the components of GDP are and what those components do for govt. revenue
 
SmartCat said:
I have posted my research. You have not. The economic history of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first century demonstrates that the economy usually performs better when Democrats are in charge. Even The Wall Street Journal agrees with me.
Click to expand...

Then you are blind as a bat as I have posted over and over again TREASURY.ORG data showing revenue and expenses by line Item. you can also find the data at bea.gov under income and expenses but you choose to buy PREDICTIONS because that is what you want to believe. Post the Treasury data to prove me wrong, you can't!!
 
SmartCat said:
Did Bernie Sanders become rich dishonestly? Please explain. Also, what about Sanders and his background would change my support for him?
Click to expand...

Because Bernie Sanders is promoting the destruction of the system that benefited him so he has his and doesn't give a damn if you get yours or not
 
Gimmesometruth said:
This why it isn't a good idea for you to"get into the (macro)economic weeds". You really don't want to get into the why of the sluggish recovery (hint:Congress) of the black guy or just how fragile this current period is. You are trying to relive some "Morning in America" myth, which was not as great as some want to insist. Sure, things have improved for those at the top, but even here (PHX) in a very active area, I am amazed at the number of homeless and the palpable tension at the supermarkets. The right should be relaxing a bit if things are a good as you want to argue, but even here at this forum I see they are more agitated. That is not a sign of confidence.
Click to expand...

Some proof of any/all that?

Except when the "black guy" prematurely weighed in, curiously always on the side of the most noticeable direction of his skin pigmentation, nobody else in any noticeable numbers much cared what color slenderman was. In fact he got a very soft, tread very "lightly", treatment by the MSM.

So go peddle your fake news elsewhere...noboby even the least bit objective, especially in comparison to the current "white guy", can honestly assert it differently.

That unease, tension, clinching you feel in those rear areas might very be a result of "withdrawl" symptoms :lamo :lamo :lamo
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Some proof of any/all that?
Click to expand...
No, there is plenty of proof in any sort of balanced reporting/analysis of the govt response (or lack of) to the GR.

Except when the "black guy" prematurely weighed in, curiously always on the side of the most noticeable direction of his skin pigmentation, nobody else in any noticeable numbers much cared what color slenderman was. In fact he got a very soft, tread very "lightly", treatment by the MSM.
Click to expand...
I see that my use of the reference "black guy" to counter yer "slenderman" has caused an jolt, making write this nearly incomprehensible word salad where you believe the "MSM " might have gone towards racial commentary. I have no idea whut that has to do with macroeconomics of the GR.

So go peddle your fake news elsewhere...noboby even the least bit objective, especially in comparison to the current "white guy", can honestly assert it differently.
Click to expand...
Assert whut differently?

That unease, tension, clinching you feel in those rear areas might very be a result of "withdrawl" symptoms :lamo :lamo :lamo
Click to expand...
Oh, now yer going all homophobic. That simple description of Obama, "the black guy", really hit you hard. Wow.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
No, there is plenty of proof in any sort of balanced reporting/analysis of the govt response (or lack of) to the GR.

I see that my use of the reference "black guy" to counter yer "slenderman" has caused an jolt, making write this nearly incomprehensible word salad where you believe the "MSM " might have gone towards racial commentary. I have no idea whut that has to do with macroeconomics of the GR.

Assert whut differently?

Oh, now yer going all homophobic. That simple description of Obama, "the black guy", really hit you hard. Wow.
Click to expand...


Well, this certainly shows that the Trump imposition of tariffs on aluminum has already had a salutary effect...somebody's foil cap reception seems to have been adversly affected, gone so grossly askew...so much so that it plainly exposes some posts as less than worthless. Saves me the time. American efficiency, self draining posts.

Thank you again, Donald.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Well, this certainly shows that the Trump imposition of tariffs on aluminum has already had a salutary effect...somebody's foil cap reception seems to have been adversly affected, gone so grossly askew...so much so that it plainly exposes some posts as less than worthless. Saves me the time. American efficiency, self draining posts.Thank you again, Donald.
Click to expand...
I warned you right from the start that you could not handle getting into "the macro weeds", you started off by demanding I show how Congress did not provide real fiscal inputs.....and then it all went downhill from there with your media coverage of Obama's race and my supposed homosexuality, simply because because I called Obama "the black guy".

Why did that upset you so?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I warned you right from the start that you could not handle getting into "the macro weeds", you started off by demanding I show how Congress did not provide real fiscal inputs.....and then it all went downhill from there with your media coverage of Obama's race and my supposed homosexuality, simply because because I called Obama "the black guy".

Why did that upset you so?
Click to expand...

Sorry, did you say something ( worthwhile )?
 
Conservative said:
That is like having the Chamber of Commerce tell the community an estimate as to what is in your bank account. Doesn't seem like a very difficult concept to understand except apparently for you. Your bank knows what you have in your account, what you spend, and what you take in. The same holds true of the Treasury so show me Treasury data supporting your claim that tax cuts CUT revenue?? Show me any official verifiable data that people would spend the same amount of money if they had higher taxes and less spendable income. You can't and you have no idea what the components of GDP are and what those components do for govt. revenue
Click to expand...

Your arguments are convincing to the already convinced. You can't back them up with data drawn from credible sources.
 
SmartCat said:
Your arguments are convincing to the already convinced. You can't back them up with data drawn from credible sources.
Click to expand...

You are so right, bea.gov, bls.gov, and treasury.org although the official sites for data and sites used to determine debt service really aren't credible in the leftwing world. Leftwing media sites offer better sources that make you feel good thus are accurate.

Noticed you have yet to post any data supporting anything you post. what is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom