Republicans once railed against deficits. President Trump's tax plan piles on more than $2 trillion

[Kushinator]

Are you really this thick?
I mean honestly, I really want to know.

You tout that the stimulus like its some sort of damning proof against the republicans, when not everyone on both sides were completely aligned on those decisions. The fact that a stimulus even got through on majority neither proves, nor disproves either of us. Not to mention the stimulus packages were nothing more then publicity.

I am trying to be as general with you as I can here, in hopes that this gets through your head.
Both parties are always watching one another on their spending, and the effects the opposite party has with their own spending. Its as plane & simple as that. Why the hell are you trying to over think this, and throw hidden meanings behind everyone's actions.

You are trying to use a truck, to hammer a single nail.

By the way, if increasing our debt by nearly 8 trillion is to be considered lowering it. You are kind of revealing the reason you're failing to grasp the above concept.

I can understand each party being suspicious... but what Republicans have done is simply unforgivable these past 8 years.

Case in point: In 2008, President Bush called for economic stimulus in the form of rebate checks and $300 billion in FHA support.

The voting record for the senate goes as follows.

Yet when we realize the economy is really in free-fall, and trillions of dollars of wealth disappear, the GOP entirely opposes Obama administration stimulus.

In reality, the GOP drew first blood by sacrificing the well being of the American people for political gain. Such stupidity is simply unforgivable.

 

[Southern Dad]

The Republicans control the Senate and will until at least January 2021. You can accept that or not but you can't change it.

 

[Vern]

Are you really this thick?
I mean honestly, I really want to know.

You tout that the stimulus like its some sort of damning proof against the republicans, when not everyone on both sides were completely aligned on those decisions. The fact that a stimulus even got through on majority neither proves, nor disproves either of us. Not to mention the stimulus packages were nothing more then publicity.

I am trying to be as general with you as I can here, in hopes that this gets through your head.
Both parties are always watching one another on their spending, and the effects the opposite party has with their own spending. Its as plane & simple as that. Why the hell are you trying to over think this, and throw hidden meanings behind everyone's actions.

You are trying to use a truck, to hammer a single nail.

By the way, if increasing our debt by nearly 8 trillion is to be considered lowering it. You are kind of revealing the reason you're failing to grasp the above concept.

Sorry O, you’re simply at the point that every conservative gets to when they refuse to let go of a false narrative.

• You don’t back up your narrative
• You simply repeat your narrative
• You refuse to acknowledge I’ve disproven your narrative
• You think flailing refutes my point
• You attack something I didn’t post.

Lets review. I’ve repeatedly asked you to provide an example. You have not. You’ve simply repeated your narrative. Dems voting for Bush’s 2008 stimulus shows they are not “deficit hawks when not in power” thus disproving your narrative. “wah wah its only publicity” is flailing and does not address the fact that I’ve disproven your narrative. and read this slowly, I said President Obama reduced the deficit. This was stated and restated in a clear straight forward manner. Yet for reasons known only to you, you’ve posted “hah, the national debt went up”.

And here’s the best part O, even if your narrative were true (its not) it doesn’t change the fact that republicans are flaming lying hypocrites concerning deficits. I suspect that’s the thing your desperately trying to avoid admitting.

 

[Vern]

The Republicans control the Senate and will until at least January 2021. You can accept that or not but you can't change it.

er uh SD, I don’t mean to be a bother but instead of posting cryptic responses to “who knows” why not address your false statement that “dems said deficits don’t matter”. And if you're feeling up to it, can you explain your point and who it was directed at? thanks in advance.

 

[Slow Burn]

Full Title: Republicans once railed against deficits. Now President Trump's tax plan piles on more than $2 trillion in red ink

---

5-6% economic growth per year would be so astounding that virtually all economists discount it entirely. So the question remains ... How can we afford the Trump tax cuts?

On Capitol Hill, GOP Representatives and Senators shrug their shoulders and ignore the $2 trillion dollar question. They need a legislative-political win today ... regardless of the cost to future generations.

I think the bigger question is, how much longer can America survive the tax and spend mentality?

 

[jmotivator]

Haven't you noticed? Deficits are only bad when the president is a Democrat.

Two responses:

1) Your post has more projection than Regal Cinemas.

2) You broke my irony meter.

Edit:

Bonus Response: I hope those bears gave consent!

 

[Geoist]

Back when Reaganomics was the buzzword there wasn't much debt so it could help the economy to borrow a little and deficit spend, but it turned into a continuous nightmare of always borrowing and never paying it back.

Interestingly enough, Ol' Saint Reagan oversaw a 186% increase in the national debt (compare that to Obama, who oversaw a 68% increase).

 

[yankintx]

Full Title: Republicans once railed against deficits. Now President Trump's tax plan piles on more than $2 trillion in red ink

---

5-6% economic growth per year would be so astounding that virtually all economists discount it entirely. So the question remains ... How can we afford the Trump tax cuts?

On Capitol Hill, GOP Representatives and Senators shrug their shoulders and ignore the $2 trillion dollar question. They need a legislative-political win today ... regardless of the cost to future generations.

Shhh...deficits only matter to the GOP when there is a Dem in the WH

 

[ataraxia]

Shhh...deficits only matter to the GOP when there is a Dem in the WH

Here is a graph of federal budget vs. expenditure. It's doesn't require the level of drama the right puts out. You don't need to throw orphans out into the street hungry so you can try to balance the budget just yet:

 

[Kushinator]

Two responses:

1) Your post has more projection than Regal Cinemas.

2) You broke my irony meter.

According to former V.P. Dick Cheney: "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." And according to Trump: "This is the United States government. First of all, you never have to default because you print the money. I hate to tell you. So there’s never a default."

Your partisan hypocrisy has absolutely no power here.

 

[JANFU]

Full Title: Republicans once railed against deficits. Now President Trump's tax plan piles on more than $2 trillion in red ink

---

5-6% economic growth per year would be so astounding that virtually all economists discount it entirely. So the question remains ... How can we afford the Trump tax cuts?

On Capitol Hill, GOP Representatives and Senators shrug their shoulders and ignore the $2 trillion dollar question. They need a legislative-political win today ... regardless of the cost to future generations.

The US cannot afford this.

 

[Visbek]

The US cannot afford this.

Actually, the US can afford it. We can afford it for a long, long time. We can afford bigger deficits.

That doesn't mean it is wise to run up huge deficits, especially since we will face some very serious fiscal challenges in the not-too-distant future. But yes, we can afford a $500 billion annual deficit. Nor has anyone actually proven, using actual data, that we can't.

 

[digsbe]

Full Title: Republicans once railed against deficits. Now President Trump's tax plan piles on more than $2 trillion in red ink

---

5-6% economic growth per year would be so astounding that virtually all economists discount it entirely. So the question remains ... How can we afford the Trump tax cuts?

On Capitol Hill, GOP Representatives and Senators shrug their shoulders and ignore the $2 trillion dollar question. They need a legislative-political win today ... regardless of the cost to future generations.

Remember when this bastard rallied on GOP debt increases then nearly doubled it in 8 years?

 

[jmotivator]

According to former V.P. Dick Cheney: "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." And according to Trump: "This is the United States government. First of all, you never have to default because you print the money. I hate to tell you. So there’s never a default."

Your partisan hypocrisy has absolutely no power here.

Whose is showing partisan hypocrisy here? Certainly not me. We have a projection of $2 trillion in deficit spending, I will speak on that if it materializes. The hypocrisy is all coming from the people who didn't care about Obama's actual realized deficits now bitching about Trump's projected deficits.

 

[Kushinator]

The hypocrisy is all coming from the people who didn't care about Obama's actual realized deficits now bitching about Trump's projected deficits.

We were in the worst recession since the 1930's on top of a financial crisis that resulted in $13 trillion in (2009 dollars) wealth evaporation. Of course deficits are not a concern in such an environment. The deficit is projected to be roughly $700 billion for fiscal year 2017. Of course you lack the fortitude to speak to such a reality.

 

[Vern]

Remember when this bastard rallied on GOP debt increases then nearly doubled it in 8 years?

D, it was unpatriotic. Bush promised to balance the budget but cut rich people’s taxes, started a war based on lies and doubled the debt. President Obama never promised to balance the budget. You seem angry that President Obama almost doubled the debt. Surely you must be mad that Bush promised to balance the budget and actually doubled the debt. And he started with a surplus. President Obama was handed the massive trillion dollar Bush Deficits (yea, they have a name). Is Bush a bastard too? Or something worse like "lying hypocrite bastard who started with a surplus"?

Anyhoo D, your obedient whining about President Obama doesn’t change the fact that republicans are flaming lying hypocrites where deficits are concerned. If it somehow makes you feel better to pretend dems are too, go right ahead. But how do you explain deficits shooting up under Reagan and Bush and they promised to balance the budget and deficits going down under Clinton and Obama and they made no such promise. In case you’re interested, Trump promised to balance the budget too and is now trying to cut rich people’s taxes. Start getting your insults ready for him.

 

[Absentglare]

I can understand each party being suspicious... but what Republicans have done is simply unforgivable these past 8 years.

Case in point: In 2008, President Bush called for economic stimulus in the form of rebate checks and $300 billion in FHA support.

The voting record for the senate goes as follows.

Yet when we realize the economy is really in free-fall, and trillions of dollars of wealth disappear, the GOP entirely opposes Obama administration stimulus.

In reality, the GOP drew first blood by sacrificing the well being of the American people for political gain. Such stupidity is simply unforgivable.

Our tendency toward "both sides do it" favors the side with the biggest lies.

It seems obvious that democrats want to use public policy to help the average joe, and that republicans want to use public policy to help the immensely wealthy.

How anyone who isn't immensely wealthy can support cutting taxes on the wealthy and spending for the poor is difficult to understand, but less surprising when we consider that the GOP has been priming the pump for the normalization of sociopathy for several decades.

 

[Oborosen]

Sorry O, you’re simply at the point that every conservative gets to when they refuse to let go of a false narrative.

• You don’t back up your narrative
• You simply repeat your narrative
• You refuse to acknowledge I’ve disproven your narrative
• You think flailing refutes my point
• You attack something I didn’t post.

Lets review. I’ve repeatedly asked you to provide an example. You have not. You’ve simply repeated your narrative. Dems voting for Bush’s 2008 stimulus shows they are not “deficit hawks when not in power” thus disproving your narrative. “wah wah its only publicity” is flailing and does not address the fact that I’ve disproven your narrative. and read this slowly, I said President Obama reduced the deficit. This was stated and restated in a clear straight forward manner. Yet for reasons known only to you, you’ve posted “hah, the national debt went up”.

And here’s the best part O, even if your narrative were true (its not) it doesn’t change the fact that republicans are flaming lying hypocrites concerning deficits. I suspect that’s the thing your desperately trying to avoid admitting.

Please stop talking out of your ass, its really starting to get embarrassing.

 

[trouble13]

Interestingly enough, Ol' Saint Reagan oversaw a 186% increase in the national debt (compare that to Obama, who oversaw a 68% increase).

Yup Reagan started the trend of deficit spending, good reasons or not.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

 

[Vern]

Please stop talking out of your ass, its really starting to get embarrassing.

And out comes the cowardly and/or dishonest deflection. O, you've made a claim you cant back up. Instead of having intregtiy and admitting you're wrong you tried to babble your way out of your own words. You only dug the hole deeper with “wah wah its only publicity” and “hah, the national debt went up”. The reason you are angry is what you really really really want to believe is false. But instead of being mad at the liars who got you to believe such silly lies, you're mad at me. And that's why I get to say when it comes time for conservatives to choose narrative or integrity, they choose narrative. And I also get add to the list

• You don’t back up your narrative
• You simply repeat your narrative
• You refuse to acknowledge I’ve disproven your narrative
• You think flailing refutes my point
• You attack something I didn’t post
• You have a childish deflecting tantrum

with your temperament and knowledge, you should question if a debate forum is the best place for you.

 

[Oborosen]

And out comes the cowardly and/or dishonest deflection. O, you've made a claim you cant back up. Instead of having intregtiy and admitting you're wrong you tried to babble your way out of your own words. You only dug the hole deeper with “wah wah its only publicity” and “hah, the national debt went up”. The reason you are angry is what you really really really want to believe is false. But instead of being mad at the liars who got you to believe such silly lies, you're mad at me. And that's why I get to say when it comes time for conservatives to choose narrative or integrity, they choose narrative. And I also get add to the list

• You don’t back up your narrative
• You simply repeat your narrative
• You refuse to acknowledge I’ve disproven your narrative
• You think flailing refutes my point
• You attack something I didn’t post
• You have a childish deflecting tantrum

with your temperament and knowledge, you should question if a debate forum is the best place for you.

Call me a coward all you want.
I just want you to stop embarrassing yourself, with trying to hammer this stupid narrative home.

But that is still your choice.

 

[Vern]

Call me a coward all you want.
I just want you to stop embarrassing yourself, with trying to hammer this stupid narrative home.

But that is still your choice.

I appreciate your concern but you are confused. I asked you to provide an example of democrats being "fiscal hawks when not in power." You provided no example. And I "hammered" your narrative when I posted democrats voting for Bush's 2008 stimulus. Instead of admitting you were wrong, you babbled around in circles and provided no example of democrats being "fiscal hawks." You even had to resort to posting "stimulus is publicity" (post 75). that is what "embarrassing yourself" looks like. Also you furthered embarrassed yourself when you pretended I was discussing debt when I said President Obama lowered the deficit.

You failed to substantiate your point that "both sides do it". And my point still stands that republicans are flaming lying hypocrites concerning deficits. And that's why you're posting/whining about me. I see it all the time O. Your narratives are more important than reality. The fact that you responded with "hah, the national debt went up" in response to me telling you President Obama lowered the massive trillion dollar Bush Deficits proves that.

 

[jonny5]

The 'reckless spending' claim is by AFP people, but what they classify as "reckless" clearly is NOT what the people of Kansas expect from their government, which serves them, not the interests of small government ideologues and extremists. That's the problem - for some reason, residents like funding K-12 and higher education and good roads and jails and even Medicaid/CHIP for the poor. People at places like AFP just imagine that a state can take a meat axe to spending and the voters go along with it. Actual people in elected jobs know if they do that, and funding for their local HS gets cut by a third, and the roads go to crap, and college tuition skyrockets because the state funding is cut year after year, they'll get booted from office.

And the article you cite refers to a study supposedly proving that cutting taxes by $800 million a year improved job growth. Probably did!! The problem is the gains were hardly noticeable, and so $800 million in nominal tax cuts per year ended up being $800 million in real tax cuts, budget shortfalls, not tax gains, or even (after the promised 'dynamic' gains) $400 million per year in revenue shortfalls. So Kansas kept missing revenue targets, running out of money, then draining all the state's 'savings' accounts and reserves to keep the lights on, barely. Kansas is a great example of when extremist ideology hits reality and the results weren't good for extremist ideology.

You totally ignored spending though. Spending is what causes deficits.

There was no shortage of reforms available to reduce spending. A 2016 efficiency report commissioned by the Legislature identified 105 opportunities to increase the efficiency of the state government, which would cumulatively provide over $2 billion in savings over a five-year period.

Pretty simple things like

Consolidating or co-locating offices that are nearby
could save $28 million

Yet they did none of this. Back to the point though, we're talking about the federal govt, not Kansas. How are we going to cut spending there?

 

[jonny5]

Yup Reagan started the trend of deficit spending, good reasons or not.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Technically the congress did. Presidents dont appropriate money or write tax policy, though they do approve it and spend it within the law. It also didnt start with Reagan. Weve been deficit spending since the 30s at least, and of course it was much worse during ww2.

 

[JasperL]

You totally ignored spending though. Spending is what causes deficits.

Revenues minus spending = surplus (deficit). There are TWO variables on that left hand side.

Pretty simple things like

I looked at the study - some of it sounds OK. And I'd support plans to save money. But the problem is the overwhelmingly GOP led legislature cut taxes, first, relied on a flood of supply side trickle down tax revenue that didn't materialize, trashed their savings accounts and reserves, and after all that commissions a study on how to save money. It's terrible management. My point all along is low taxes means small government. If Kansas wants small government, fine, get that first then the tax cuts follow like night follows day. Same with the Feds. I'm fine with low Federal taxes. Let the GOP figure out how to cut $800 billion or whatever from annual spending, THEN provide the juicy tax cuts to their puppeteers.