A historic disaster is coming for the US from the tax bill

Craig234 said:
You're telling a misinformed, false, partisan story.

I repeat, Clinton reduced the deficit all 8 years by similar amounts, INCLUDING the first two years when Democrats controlled all branches.

The changing event from the constant high deficits of the 12 previous years under Republican Rule to the 8 years of deficit reduction was the passage of Clinton's tax hikes, which all Republicans said would DESTROY the economy, but which did the opposite.

How do those facts - the all-Democratic government starting deficit reduction - square with your story that the Republicans deserve the credit?

Isn't it amazing that when the Republicans had power the 12 years before Clinton, and the 8 years after, that EVERY ONE of those years exploded the deficit? So that the moment that same Republican Congress that under Clinton you give credit for the low
deficits, the MOMENT Clinton was replaced by Bush, that same Republican congress suddenly saw massive increases in the deficit? Maybe THEY weren't the cause after all?

Now, you can go on to the next bit of Republican propaganda to explain this - 9/11!

It's true that Bush did explode the 'security spending' - massive increases to things like a new 'Homeland defense' bureaucracy, military spending, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq - but only 30% of the deficit increase was from all the 'security spending.

Maybe you should go get informed a little about the actual reasons - here's a hint, the biggest was the Bush tax cuts for the rich, EVERY PENNY of which was added to the debt.

One last thing.

Social Security is NOT on a path to unsustainability. It can be easily 'fixed'. In the 1930's Republicans said it couldn't last. They're still telling that lie. The truth is they SIMPLY WANT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE POORER TO TAKE THEIR MONEY FOR THE RICH.
Click to expand...

Pretty easy question to answer, they fought Clinton over spending because he was a democrat. Bush was a Repubkican so they did what he wanted. It's a reason many people like mixed gov't
 
Craig234 said:
As you see in this thread, I respond to the lies on issues. But the pure garbage - the personal insults - there's not much point to answering the bile. They speak for themselves.
Click to expand...

Fwiw, because you disagree with something doesn't make it a lie or even wrong
 
cawacko said:
Why should one be offended by the Kochs? (I mean I guess if you dislike free markets...)
Click to expand...

Oh, no, not the myth about 'free markets'? Man you fall for every right-wing lie?

Let's take another example.

Republicans like to pass bad policies for the country - so they invent this sales pitch to justify a lot of them of "states' rights" - but then note how they do the opposite whenever THAT fits their agenda. For example, they talk about being for local government, not central, all the time, but are now on a BINGE of prohibiting cities and states from doing any number of things that are good for the people,. but hurt their donors. it's a lie you fall for.

Or when it comes to gutting the constitution for the right-wing donors - they invent a sales pitch to justify it called 'original intent' - but only apply it when it fits their agenda.

Look, let's take a clear example.

In 2000, the Republicans on the Supreme Court wanted to give the election to George Bush, which meant taking it out of the hands of the Florida Supreme Court (there's that violation of preferring 'local government' again when it suits them), which was ordering a recount which we later learned would have shown Gore won.

Now listen to how this works.

There is a constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law. This has all kinds of effects; recently more than a century after it was passed, to recognize gay people have the equal right to marry (over the protest of the Republicans).

Now, our elections are run state by state, county by county. And we do NOT have federal standards for things. One place uses paper ballots, another computers. In one county machines are set to return ballots with errors to the voter to correct; in others it's set to 'eat' the ballot and not count it. (In Florida, white counties returned the ballot, while black counties did not, resulting in voided ballot rates around 1% for whites and sometimes over 10% for blacks).

These differences are simply accepted as a practical matter and not a problem.

Until the 2000 election in Florida. For THAT state and THAT election, the Supreme Court suddenly decided that the differences in details between counties was a violation of the constitutional equal protection clause - and so they ordered a recount NOT be done, handing the election to Bush.

Now the even bigger smoking gun: recognizing that this legal theory would require massive changes to all elections across the country if enforced, they simply - well I'll quote this article which quotes the court:

Second, critics of the Court's Equal Protection analysis in Bush have noted the rather peculiar limitations the majority attempted to place on the implications of their own logic. For example, in a curious effort to constrain the reach of their decision, the majority pointedly noted that "our consideration" of the Equal Protection Clause's impact on election processes "is limited to the present circumstances."
Click to expand...

For more details:

http://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/1/777777122240/

If you have to ask why if you hate Gates you should hate the Kochs, there's as much point in telling you as in telling the head of the Church of Scientology why his religion is a scam.
 
cawacko said:
Pretty easy question to answer, they fought Clinton over spending because he was a democrat. Bush was a Repubkican so they did what he wanted. It's a reason many people like mixed gov't
Click to expand...

So, why did the deficit get reduced just as much the first two years with an all-Democratic government? The first two critical years which began deficit reduction after 12 years of Republican big deficits.
 
please dont get angry dude


you have to fight in a way that you can win with


being nice doesnt work with people who are sociopaths.


the only way I can stop the assholes from threatening the females here with veiled sexual threats is with proving to them that I fear no words and can out invective them without a shread of fear that they will find me and harm me for real.


that is the value of those threats

I also have always found invective funny as fuck


I love Carlin


I love Pryor


they were invective filled
 
Craig234 said:
Was that to me? If so, it was wrong and rude.
Click to expand...

its nit an insult


its facts

my whole style is designed to get people to read it


everything I do is about spreading the message that facts matter more than anything


you write great stuff and I love most of it.



invective is not going to harm any fact I present



its makes it entertaining


I dont know how old you are but most people talk with dirty words and such in tbheir everyday speach.


If you dont know that you dont know the society you live in
 
Craig234 said:
So, why did the deficit get reduced just as much the first two years with an all-Democratic government? The first two critical years which began deficit reduction after 12 years of Republican big deficits.
Click to expand...

The democrats controlled the House and most of the senate the entire 12 years. You think they played no role in spending during that time?
 
Craig234 said:
Oh, no, not the myth about 'free markets'? Man you fall for every right-wing lie?

Let's take another example.

Republicans like to pass bad policies for the country - so they invent this sales pitch to justify a lot of them of "states' rights" - but then note how they do the opposite whenever THAT fits their agenda. For example, they talk about being for local government, not central, all the time, but are now on a BINGE of prohibiting cities and states from doing any number of things that are good for the people,. but hurt their donors. it's a lie you fall for.

Or when it comes to gutting the constitution for the right-wing donors - they invent a sales pitch to justify it called 'original intent' - but only apply it when it fits their agenda.

Look, let's take a clear example.

In 2000, the Republicans on the Supreme Court wanted to give the election to George Bush, which meant taking it out of the hands of the Florida Supreme Court (there's that violation of preferring 'local government' again when it suits them), which was ordering a recount which we later learned would have shown Gore won.

Now listen to how this works.

There is a constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law. This has all kinds of effects; recently more than a century after it was passed, to recognize gay people have the equal right to marry (over the protest of the Republicans).

Now, our elections are run state by state, county by county. And we do NOT have federal standards for things. One place uses paper ballots, another computers. In one county machines are set to return ballots with errors to the voter to correct; in others it's set to 'eat' the ballot and not count it. (In Florida, white counties returned the ballot, while black counties did not, resulting in voided ballot rates around 1% for whites and sometimes over 10% for blacks).

These differences are simply accepted as a practical matter and not a problem.

Until the 2000 election in Florida. For THAT state and THAT election, the Supreme Court suddenly decided that the differences in details between counties was a violation of the constitutional equal protection clause - and so they ordered a recount NOT be done, handing the election to Bush.

Now the even bigger smoking gun: recognizing that this legal theory would require massive changes to all elections across the country if enforced, they simply - well I'll quote this article which quotes the court:



For more details:

http://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/1/777777122240/

If you have to ask why if you hate Gates you should hate the Kochs, there's as much point in telling you as in telling the head of the Church of Scientology why his religion is a scam.
Click to expand...

Myth of the free market? Now I'm even more curious what economists you read.
 
Craig234 said:
Oh, no, not the myth about 'free markets'? Man you fall for every right-wing lie?

Let's take another example.

Republicans like to pass bad policies for the country - so they invent this sales pitch to justify a lot of them of "states' rights" - but then note how they do the opposite whenever THAT fits their agenda. For example, they talk about being for local government, not central, all the time, but are now on a BINGE of prohibiting cities and states from doing any number of things that are good for the people,. but hurt their donors. it's a lie you fall for.

Or when it comes to gutting the constitution for the right-wing donors - they invent a sales pitch to justify it called 'original intent' - but only apply it when it fits their agenda.

Look, let's take a clear example.

In 2000, the Republicans on the Supreme Court wanted to give the election to George Bush, which meant taking it out of the hands of the Florida Supreme Court (there's that violation of preferring 'local government' again when it suits them), which was ordering a recount which we later learned would have shown Gore won.

Now listen to how this works.

There is a constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law. This has all kinds of effects; recently more than a century after it was passed, to recognize gay people have the equal right to marry (over the protest of the Republicans).

Now, our elections are run state by state, county by county. And we do NOT have federal standards for things. One place uses paper ballots, another computers. In one county machines are set to return ballots with errors to the voter to correct; in others it's set to 'eat' the ballot and not count it. (In Florida, white counties returned the ballot, while black counties did not, resulting in voided ballot rates around 1% for whites and sometimes over 10% for blacks).

These differences are simply accepted as a practical matter and not a problem.

Until the 2000 election in Florida. For THAT state and THAT election, the Supreme Court suddenly decided that the differences in details between counties was a violation of the constitutional equal protection clause - and so they ordered a recount NOT be done, handing the election to Bush.

Now the even bigger smoking gun: recognizing that this legal theory would require massive changes to all elections across the country if enforced, they simply - well I'll quote this article which quotes the court:



For more details:

http://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/1/777777122240/

If you have to ask why if you hate Gates you should hate the Kochs, there's as much point in telling you as in telling the head of the Church of Scientology why his religion is a scam.
Click to expand...
you lack understanding on Bush v Gore.

there was a time constraint based on the electoral college coming up. so while SCOTUS agreed it was a violation of equal protection -it also ruled there was no other satisfactory method. which gave the 5-4 results.

(Going by memory) Gore rejected a full state wide recount.

as to the economics -you are conceited and a windbag who likes to preach rather then debate.

I have great respect for Bernie for bringing up the idea of income inequality as a major issue of
"pursuit of happiness" issue.
if one cannot afford the basics-one cannot better one's economic situation either.

I fully support SnglePay and voted for Bernie in the primary ( I am a registered dem) for that reason.
The problem was the DNC was corrupt, the super- delegate process is corrupt,and Hilary is a corrupt warmonger.

Like many middle class wage slaves I wanted no part of her identity politics without addressing economic concerns.
So I voted for Trump.

The Republicans control Congress - this is what they do in regards to tax reform.
While i agree it's not the best bill, it has to be done to ensure GDP growth. so i support that plan
over doing nothing.
 
cawacko said:
The democrats controlled the House and most of the senate the entire 12 years. You think they played no role in spending during that time?
Click to expand...

Yet, huge deficits for years went to reduced deficits the MINUTE Clinton replaced the Republicans and his tax-increasing budget passed, with those same Democratic House and Senate. So, I guess they weren't the cause.
 
noise said:
you lack understanding on Bush v Gore.
Click to expand...

Insolent ignorance.

there was a time constraint based on the electoral college coming up. so while SCOTUS agreed it was a violation of equal protection -it also ruled there was no other satisfactory method. which gave the 5-4 results.
Click to expand...

No, actually, there was an artificial deadline easily delayed with no serious impact that was EASILY outweighed by the importance of counting the votes - if their goal hadn't been to install the president they wanted.

(Going by memory) Gore rejected a full state wide recount.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Faced with the various circumstances including the question of that artificial deadline, Gore only sued for a recount in four counties - and had he won what he sued four and those counties been recounted, he'd still have lost.

But that's not what happened. The case went to the Florida Supreme Court, who ordered a statewide recount, and THAT would have corrected the result to a Gore win, we learned later. THAT is what the Supreme Court blocked.


The bits of the rest of your post I saw put you on ignore now.
 
Craig234 said:
I'm sorry but I write a lot and you respond with little as if you didn't even read or get almost any of it.
Click to expand...

I was on my own phone in church. Not exactly an idea place to write long responses about taxes.

I have no idea where you were going with Bush v Gore. That's a totally different conversation.

As for the myth of free markets and it being a right wing lie that sounds like something Marx would say. We don't have fully free markets in the U.S. but it is a worthy goal working to make them more free. Capitalism has brought more people out of poverty than any other economic system. Government run centrally planned economies have shown they did not work
 
Craig234 said:
Yet, huge deficits for years went to reduced deficits the MINUTE Clinton replaced the Republicans and his tax-increasing budget passed, with those same Democratic House and Senate. So, I guess they weren't the cause.
Click to expand...

You think the proposed Clinton Health Care plan would have reduced the deficit? Zero chance. Republicans are the ones who killed it. You are welcome.
 
cawacko said:
You think the proposed Clinton Health Care plan would have reduced the deficit? Zero chance. Republicans are the ones who killed it. You are welcome.
Click to expand...

what the fuck?


it was the budget reduction act of 1993 that gave us the balenced budgets idiot
 
You need to learn how you are being a pedant in your approach to these issues.

For example, if I was to try to talk to a Scientologist or an Amway sales person critically of their organization, I know what to expect, well-polished selective defensive straw men.

The Amway salesperson would say things like, am I against small business? Capitalism? Things designed to force a positive response he can wrap his scam company in while hiding its flaws, and using false equivalencies.

That's pretty much the same thing you're doing here. Not intentionally, I'm sure, but it is. You're making arguments that are based in a propaganda framing of the issues, designed for only one response to be 'right' that misses the actual issues.

Now, I'm about to go have lunch rather than type another several paragraphs to try to detail the point I'm making. I dunno, try googling on 'free markets false right-wing myth' and see what you find and let me know. Bet Marx won't be mentioned in most.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top