As America Changes, Some Anxious Whites Feel Left Behind

They were.


No they weren't. If the tax cuts were paid for, then there wouldn't have been deficits. But your tax cuts erased the surplus you were given, then you went on to set the record high deficit four times. Your record high deficit of $1.4T stands as the largest ever. Congratulations.

The War on Terror was definitely not paid for. What makes you think it was? Or are you just disagreeing with me now because you don't want to admit you're full of shit?

Medicare Part-D was passed with a majority of Conservative votes. Bush the Dumber also signed it.

Your deregulation tanked the economy, specifically your non-enforcement of lending standards for subprime loans beginning in 2004 and extending into 2007, just like Bush's Working Group says.
 
Yeah...tuition.

So here's a great example: KS cut taxes in 2012, promising that they'd be "a shot of adrenaline" into the arm of KS' economy. Obviously, they weren't and what happened instead was that KS' budget surpluses were erased and replaced with massive deficits. It was so bad that KS had to raid its Highway Fund just to balance their budget. Now, when massive deficits occur, that is what Conservatives use as an excuse to cut the spending on things they oppose, specifically health care and education. So KS cut taxes, which reduced revenues, which produced deficits, which were closed with cuts to spending. One of the first targets for spending cuts was the KS State University system. So the Conservatives cut education spending, which forced the KS State University Board of Regents to raise their tuition, which means KS residents had to spend more (or borrow more) out of pocket in order to cover the increase in tuition caused by the cuts to education, caused by the deficit, caused by the tax cut.

CA, on the other hand, raised taxes and poured more money into education, so much so that tuition costs for state colleges and universities were among the lowest in the nation on a price-per-credit basis.

So that's how tax cuts result in increase out-of-pocket spending for things that should be essential services.

They did the same thing with Medicaid in KS too; they cut it which increased co-pays, drug costs, coinsurance, etc. All because KS had to cut taxes for the rich. Why? Who fucking knows.

Do you have a source for the among the lowest cost per credit basis claim?

If you are living below the poverty line and you make it to college chances are you're taking out loans.
 
:lolup: Lying Moron on steroids. :rofl2: You didn't talk about it because you're a lying, dishonest hyper partisan leftist hack.

Stop being a baby.

Your mortgage bubble is the reason why revenue grew from 2005-8. It wasn't because of the tax cut; it was because of the housing bubble fueled by deregulated subprime loans and MEWs.
 
Presidents can't spend dumbfuck. Clinton came into office saying "it's the economy stupid". Then he agreed with the Democratic controlled Congress to raise taxes. The deficit at the time was $255 billion. The Democrats lost the Congress in 1995 for the first time in almost 40 years to Republicans due to the tax increases.

Yes, Conservatives lied about taxes...shocking. Here's the thing, though, Clinton still got a 36% increase in spending over his term, and the tax hikes were preserved. So you guys got into Congress, did nothing, and are now trying to retroactively take credit for the thing you shut down the government over, and lost? LOL!

Talk about revisionism.

The only pieces of legislation the Conservatives passed were "welfare reform" (which was a big, stinking turd) and the Capital Gains Tax Cut, which was directly responsible for the dotcom bubble. The same thing you were lamenting before as an excuse for why you erased surpluses.

So again, there's another case of Conservative economics ruining an economy.
 
Actually, it has...and your shitty little opinion pieces, which also rely on old baseline revenue models, are clearly just a way for the right-wing fringe to interject themselves in a debate they know very little about, and choose to know very little about.

Here's some more from a right-wing fringe paper:


California Today: Is the Long-Looming Pension Crisis Already Here?


David Crane, a lecturer at Stanford and a former adviser to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, is the bringer of bad news. For more than a decade, Mr. Crane, a San Francisco Democrat and former investment banker, has been forecasting a disaster in California’s pension system. He was removed from the board of directors that oversees benefits paid to California’s teachers after repeatedly warning that the fund’s investment assumptions were too rosy, and since then has continued to scream about a coming financial reckoning.

Today, in addition to teaching at Stanford, Mr. Crane is the president of Govern for California, a network of political donors whose members include the former mayor of Los Angeles, Richard Riordan, and the Oakland A’s owner John Fisher, and supports candidates from both parties – so long as they are willing to tackle important but politically unpopular issues like pension and education reform.

Below is a condensed interview with Mr. Crane:

Who/what is Govern for California?
It’s a network of about 300 donors and growing, and they are Democrats, Republicans and Independents. The legislature is a coequal branch of government and governors can’t do anything without them. Generally speaking, the only people who know the names of California state legislators are people who feed at the trough or benefit from new legislation. The people who get screwed are everyone else in California.

The headlines make it seem as if the pension problem is always coming and never here. You say it’s already here. Explain.

State revenues have gone up about 30 percent over the last decade, but state spending on virtually everything other than retirement costs and medical spending – like universities, courts, parks and welfare – is flat to down. That kind of stuff happens because the money is going out the door to something else, and you ain’t seen nothing yet. The way the math works, the problem doubles every seven years.

Oakland schools recently cut their budget $15 million in the ninth year of a bull market and after a 30 percent state tax increase. People are teaching kids but can’t afford to live in their city. That to me is a crisis. School systems can’t afford to hire specialists. That to me is a crisis.

What’s your suggestion for fixing it?
The easy way was to fix it 13 years ago. Now the state is going to have to cut benefits for people who did nothing wrong, and don’t even have pensions that are that high. Most people will tell you that the cuts are draconian, but it’s not more draconian than what has already happened to taxpayers, college students and young teachers who aren’t getting jobs – or aren’t getting salary increases if they can get jobs.


Tell me something optimistic.
This problem will be incredibly painful, but I really believe that the California legislature is going to solve it.


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/09/us/california-today-pension-system-david-crane.html
 
:lolup: Moron keeps erupting with the same stupid claim thinking it's a fact.

It is a fact that from 2004-7, Bush and the Conservatives were inflating a mortgage bubble.

It's my opinion that they were doing that to cover for the failure of the tax cuts to deliver on any promises made of them. But that opinion of mine is supported with plenty of evidence, which I am happy to provide...specifically how Bush wiped out OCC rules against predatory lending, how he forced GSEs to buy risky loans when he reversed a 2000 Clinton-era HUD rule, how his regulators backed off enforcing lending standards beginning in 2004, and how he let the industry police itself. Bush also killed GSE reform in 2003, and pushed the American Dream Downpayment Act in 2002.



The Democrats took over the purse strings in 2007 you willful idiot. This is why I hate arguing with low information morns who can only parrot the moronic talking points they've been fed. You spend 2/3rdds of your time trying to educate them.

So then link to all the new legislation and spending they did. You can't, can you? It's ironic that you accuse me of talking points when all you've done is spit out half-baked ones yourself. You don't even source your talking points. Pathetic and weak.
 
No they weren't. If the tax cuts were paid for, then there wouldn't have been deficits. But your tax cuts erased the surplus you were given, then you went on to set the record high deficit four times. Your record high deficit of $1.4T stands as the largest ever. Congratulations.

The War on Terror was definitely not paid for. What makes you think it was? Or are you just disagreeing with me now because you don't want to admit you're full of shit?

Medicare Part-D was passed with a majority of Conservative votes. Bush the Dumber also signed it.

Your deregulation tanked the economy, specifically your non-enforcement of lending standards for subprime loans beginning in 2004 and extending into 2007, just like Bush's Working Group says.

:lolup: Keeps repeating the same stupid mantra over and over again. :rofl2:

giphy.gif
 
Stop being a baby.

Your mortgage bubble is the reason why revenue grew from 2005-8. It wasn't because of the tax cut; it was because of the housing bubble fueled by deregulated subprime loans and MEWs.

:lolup: Keeps parroting the same stupid bullshit over and over again. :rofl2:

giphy.gif
 
Yes, Conservatives lied about taxes...shocking. Here's the thing, though, Clinton still got a 36% increase in spending over his term, and the tax hikes were preserved. So you guys got into Congress, did nothing, and are now trying to retroactively take credit for the thing you shut down the government over, and lost? LOL!

Talk about revisionism.

The only pieces of legislation the Conservatives passed were "welfare reform" (which was a big, stinking turd) and the Capital Gains Tax Cut, which was directly responsible for the dotcom bubble. The same thing you were lamenting before as an excuse for why you erased surpluses.

So again, there's another case of Conservative economics ruining an economy.

:lolup: Keeps parroting the same stupid leftist lies over and over and over again. :rofl2:

giphy.gif
 
Wrong; it's because Democrats never found a better reason to spend 535 billion more than they were talking in. The Democratic Party of the Jackass loves to spend money.

No, revenues were depressed because of your shitty tax cut (and they had been since 2001), and because of the economic collapse caused by your shitty deregulation, which I content was to cover for the fact that your tax cuts were a big flop.


Wrong; in truth, it was on an uptick. It increased to $584.7 plus from $438.5.

???? That's not what the facts here say. You seem to have an allergy to facts.



Again, the year hasn't ended and that had record levels of revenue come in the last quarter.

No, the record levels of revenue should come in late Q1, early Q2 because that's when people are paying taxes. April is typically the month the government sees the most revenue because that's when most people pay their taxes. The FY ends in the Fall, not in December, as you astutely said before. The CBO projects a $1T deficit for this FY.


Smart people, that would exclude you, would wait until the fiscal year ends to starty ranting like linatics.

The CBO projects a deficit of $800B - $1T for this FY. Obama's last deficit was $503B.


But again, the last thing a lying hypocrite like you should do is whine about deficits after supporting a President that spent more than the previous three presidents, and you didn't say a word...but cheered the spending.

Are you talking about Bush the Dumber? Because that's exactly what he did. In fact, Bush the Dumber spent more than all 42 previous presidents combined. That's what happens when you double the debt after 8 years.

Unlike you, I don't have fake concerns over the deficit that I bubble up whenever I need to make a shitty point. My position on the deficit is that I don't care. What I do care about is you posturing over the deficit and feigning concern for something you obviously don't give a shit about.
 
:lolup: Lying leftist won't quite babbling ignorant.

I'm not lying about anything. But you've lied. A lot. It's a fact that there was a mortgage bubble from 2004-7, and it's a fact that bubble appeared in 2004. It's also a fact that Bush tied his tax cuts to the housing bubble while he campaigned in 2004:

From FOX NEWS:
Bush Ties Policy to Record Home Ownership
Published March 26, 2004

Touting his tax cuts as the economy's savior — and pointing to the strong housing market as proof — Bush said "more people own their own home now than ever." More than 50 percent of minorities owned their own homes in the last three months of 2003 for the first time ever, the president said.

So here's Bush tying his tax cuts to the housing market. Which means...wait for it...that the tax cuts were responsible for the housing bubble too.




Please link us up to ONE Bush policy that led to the LIBERAL created mortgage implosion snowflake. It had NOTHING to do with tax cuts you ignorant dullard.

I just did, above! LOL! Bush's crediting his tax cuts to the housing growth...IN 2004 WHEN THE HOUSING BUBBLE STARTED.

Though the biggest blunder was Bush not enforcing lending standards, as his own Working Group said in 2008:

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”

Ouch. That has to hurt your ego and pride. Bush's own people saying his lax enforcement was the cause of the turmoil. That's gotta sting for you, right? To have your own team conceding that their bullshit policies were the cause of the collapse, and the massive deficits Obama had to unwind.

You're welcome for that, BTW.
 
It is a fact that from 2004-7, Bush and the Conservatives were inflating a mortgage bubble.

It's my opinion that they were doing that to cover for the failure of the tax cuts to deliver on any promises made of them. But that opinion of mine is supported with plenty of evidence, which I am happy to provide...specifically how Bush wiped out OCC rules against predatory lending, how he forced GSEs to buy risky loans when he reversed a 2000 Clinton-era HUD rule, how his regulators backed off enforcing lending standards beginning in 2004, and how he let the industry police itself. Bush also killed GSE reform in 2003, and pushed the American Dream Downpayment Act in 2002.





So then link to all the new legislation and spending they did. You can't, can you? It's ironic that you accuse me of talking points when all you've done is spit out half-baked ones yourself. You don't even source your talking points. Pathetic and weak.

they crashed it on purpose


the 1 percenters love a boom and bust economy


the states tried to implement state laws

the Bush feds fought them
 
SEC Votes for Final Rules Defining How Banks Can Be Securities Brokers
Eight Years After Passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Key Provisions Will Now Be Implemented
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2007-190
Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2007 - Ending eight years of stalled negotiations and impasse, the Commission today voted to adopt, jointly with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), new rules that will finally implement the bank broker provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. The Board will consider these final rules at its Sept. 24, 2007 meeting. The Commission and the Board consulted with and sought the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of Thrift Supervision.
 
And to make matters worse.........they would vote for bush again for President, or appoint him to some 8 figure cushy job.

They love criminals and killers........just not Black ones.
 
1) 2006-2009 budgets written by a demmycrat Congress....

FUCKING WRONG.

Democrats didn't take control of the House until January 2007, and the economy entered a recession later that year. So you were wrong. Time to own up for being wrong. Will you? Probably not because you're a garbage person.

Secondly, without TARP, spending for 2008 was less than 2007.

So your shitty wars, your shitty tax cut, your shitty entitlement expansion, and your shitty deregulation are the cause of the deficit records for 2008 and 2009.


) 2003-2004 creation of Homeland Security and expanded spending on local police and firemen......

Who controlled Congress from 2003-4? Oh right, Conservatives did. And you're telling me the department of homeland security's budget was $377B and $412B? That's weird, because their actual budgets were $37B in 2003 (so you were only $340B off) and $36.2B in 2004 (so you're only $380B off).

It's hilarious how you think I'm as fucking lazy as you. Like I won't go and try to find out what DHS' budget was in 2003-4.

So...

The deficit for 2003 was $377B, but the DHS budget was $37B. So what accounts for the other $340B in the deficit for that year?
The deficit for 2004 was $412B, but the DHS budget was $36B. So what accounts for the other $376B in the deficit for that year?

I don't expect you to answer. But nice try pretending that DHS is the reason for budget deficits that were 10x the size of DHS' budget.

Sloppy, lazy, rushed work you do...that reflects poorly on your work ethic.
 
thank you TTQ for making me think of him

it made me cry again when I reread it looking at your thanks


He was also stationed in Puerto Rico for awhile


he had such great stories about his best friend there


his car went on the fritz and he didnt have time to fix it

so he asked arroub who was the best in town

so he took it to that guy

they hit it off and the guy invited him into his stations office for some chicken soup.

Pop thought ,chicken soup?


I guess I just will be hospitable and have some


the guy leads him to the office and reaches up upon a shelf and pulls down two glasses and a bottle of Chevas Regal


scotch is now called chicken soup in my family


its good for what ailes you

Great story evince. I will never view chicken soup the same.

Perhaps one day we will meet. I think we are in the same area of CA. You can bring the shots of "chicken soup" and Ill bring some "good books to read".

Books are what we call pot in my family. It's weird how we got there, but it has to do with pot being associated with trees, and trees being associated with books.....anywho...it was all made up to keep it on the down low.

:clink:to Chicken Soup!
 
Back
Top