Conservative wet dream abandoned

2001400ex

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kansas-legislators-abandon-brownbacks-tax-experiment-142231628.html

YellowSnow

So reduction in tax revenues don't actually pay for themselves? Shocking!!

UWhuskytskeet

Kansas even cut school weeks down to four days in order to make budget.

Kaepsknee

Having more people on public assistance is always better for Honda's economy.


Because people like Hondo don't care about a bottom line when we can just print moar money.

YellowSnow

salemcoog said:

Having more people on public assistance is always better for Honda's economy.


Because people like Hondo don't care about a bottom line when we can just print moar money.

Deficits don't matter. The GOP taught us that.

Kaepsknee

YellowSnow said:

salemcoog said:

Having more people on public assistance is always better for Honda's economy.


Because people like Hondo don't care about a bottom line when we can just print moar money.

Deficits don't matter. The GOP taught us that.

They were deficiting before it was cool to defecate. I have to give you that.

RaceBannon

Revenues rose substantially under Reagan but I understand that this is akin to a religious experience to the left to deny that.

Keep the faith and ignore the spending

TierbsHsotBoobs

RaceBannon said:

Revenues rose substantially under Reagan but I understand that this is akin to a religious experience to the left to deny that.

Keep the faith and ignore the spending

At least Reagan's rampant deficit spending helped the economy. It was worth it IMO.

As for spending increases....

RaceBannon

Cool story. Spending was lowest with a GOP congress under Clinton. We knew that.

TierbsHsotBoobs

RaceBannon said:

Cool story. Spending was lowest with a GOP congress under Clinton. We knew that.

I prefer the Democratic President + Republican Congress arrangement too.

One party rule for either side is horrible.

2001400ex

salemcoog said:

Having more people on public assistance is always better for Honda's economy.


Because people like Hondo don't care about a bottom line when we can just print moar money.

Da fuq does cutting taxes on wealthy and businesses and cutting spending on education, middle class jobs and pensions have to do with people on public assistance?

RaceBannon

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

RaceBannon said:

Cool story. Spending was lowest with a GOP congress under Clinton. We knew that.

I prefer the Democratic President + Republican Congress arrangement too.

One party rule for either side is horrible.

In 94 we had two parties. I agree in principle but the GOP Congress needs to be aborted n a back alley with a hanger regardless of who is in the white house. Not that the dems deserve any better

2001400ex

RaceBannon said:

Revenues rose substantially under Reagan but I understand that this is akin to a religious experience to the left to deny that.

Keep the faith and ignore the spending

Not when you put revenues in context with the size of the economy. But facts don't matter to you.

RaceBannon

2001400ex said:

RaceBannon said:

Revenues rose substantially under Reagan but I understand that this is akin to a religious experience to the left to deny that.

Keep the faith and ignore the spending

Not when you put revenues in context with the size of the economy. But facts don't matter to you.

Shut the fuck up

TierbsHsotBoobs

RaceBannon said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

RaceBannon said:

Cool story. Spending was lowest with a GOP congress under Clinton. We knew that.

I prefer the Democratic President + Republican Congress arrangement too.

One party rule for either side is horrible.

In 94 we had two parties. I agree in principle but the GOP Congress needs to be aborted n a back alley with a hanger regardless of who is in the white house. Not that the dems deserve any better

I always support classy coat hanger abortions of Congresscritters (note: this is not a call for genocide)

2001400ex

RaceBannon said:

2001400ex said:

RaceBannon said:

Revenues rose substantially under Reagan but I understand that this is akin to a religious experience to the left to deny that.

Keep the faith and ignore the spending

Not when you put revenues in context with the size of the economy. But facts don't matter to you.

Shut the fuck up

You clearly don't like facts. I'll wait for you to pay Derek $100.

RaceBannon

2001400ex said:

RaceBannon said:

2001400ex said:

RaceBannon said:

Revenues rose substantially under Reagan but I understand that this is akin to a religious experience to the left to deny that.

Keep the faith and ignore the spending

Not when you put revenues in context with the size of the economy. But facts don't matter to you.

Shut the fuck up

You clearly don't like facts. I'll wait for you to pay Derek $100.

I want you here as a living breathing example of abject stupidity

2001400ex

RaceBannon said:

2001400ex said:

RaceBannon said:

2001400ex said:

RaceBannon said:

Revenues rose substantially under Reagan but I understand that this is akin to a religious experience to the left to deny that.

Keep the faith and ignore the spending

Not when you put revenues in context with the size of the economy. But facts don't matter to you.

Shut the fuck up

You clearly don't like facts. I'll wait for you to pay Derek $100.

I want you here as a living breathing example of abject stupidity

Ironic.

YellowSnow

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

RaceBannon said:

Revenues rose substantially under Reagan but I understand that this is akin to a religious experience to the left to deny that.

Keep the faith and ignore the spending

At least Reagan's rampant deficit spending helped the economy. It was worth it IMO.

As for spending increases....

Agree. Reagan's deficits, at least, had some ROI. And we borrowed that money in the 1980's primarily from ourselves and not the land of Gina. In my view, once we got the books balanced in the late 90's, we should have done everything possible to keep it that way. Bush '43 will forever have my wrath for fucking up the national checking account and setting a bad precedents.

YellowSnow

RaceBannon said:

Revenues rose substantially under Reagan but I understand that this is akin to a religious experience to the left to deny that.

Keep the faith and ignore the spending

There's a sweet spot on tax rates for top brackets. Reagan was right to bring it down from 70% or whatever the hell it was at the time. But doubt there's much economic stimulus going from, say, 39% down to 29%.

Swaye

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

RaceBannon said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

RaceBannon said:

Cool story. Spending was lowest with a GOP congress under Clinton. We knew that.

I prefer the Democratic President + Republican Congress arrangement too.

One party rule for either side is horrible.

In 94 we had two parties. I agree in principle but the GOP Congress needs to be aborted n a back alley with a hanger regardless of who is in the white house. Not that the dems deserve any better

I always support classy coat hanger abortions of Congresscritters (note: this is not a call for genocide)

I gotta tell you, that sounds a lot like genocide to me. And I know genocide.

RaceBannon

I can't remember my last wet dream

YellowSnow

RaceBannon said:

I can't remember my last wet dream

Had they even been invented yet?

RaceBannon

They were known as nocturnal emissions

Sledog

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

RaceBannon said:

Revenues rose substantially under Reagan but I understand that this is akin to a religious experience to the left to deny that.

Keep the faith and ignore the spending

At least Reagan's rampant deficit spending helped the economy. It was worth it IMO.

As for spending increases....

Hmmmm. GW is a bit more understandable after 9/11. How could Obama rack up a deficit greater than all prior president's only spending at an 2% higher rate?

CirrhosisDawg

Sledog said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

RaceBannon said:

Revenues rose substantially under Reagan but I understand that this is akin to a religious experience to the left to deny that.

Keep the faith and ignore the spending

At least Reagan's rampant deficit spending helped the economy. It was worth it IMO.

As for spending increases....

Hmmmm. GW is a bit more understandable after 9/11. How could Obama rack up a deficit greater than all prior president's only spending at an 2% higher rate?

I wish I could say I am shocked by such ignorance. Welcome to troomps america. Ts&Ps for the United States.

Mosster47

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

RaceBannon said:

Cool story. Spending was lowest with a GOP congress under Clinton. We knew that.

I prefer the Democratic President + Republican Congress arrangement too.

One party rule for either side is horrible.

Whenever one side has control they get all excited and jerk off all over each other then quickly lose control. Dumbo with a Powerpoint is a prime example.

UWhuskytskeet

Sledog said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

RaceBannon said:

Revenues rose substantially under Reagan but I understand that this is akin to a religious experience to the left to deny that.

Keep the faith and ignore the spending

At least Reagan's rampant deficit spending helped the economy. It was worth it IMO.

As for spending increases....

Hmmmm. GW is a bit more understandable after 9/11. How could Obama rack up a deficit greater than all prior president's only spending at an 2% higher rate?

Guessing you weren't a math major?

2001400ex

Sledog said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

RaceBannon said:

Revenues rose substantially under Reagan but I understand that this is akin to a religious experience to the left to deny that.

Keep the faith and ignore the spending

At least Reagan's rampant deficit spending helped the economy. It was worth it IMO.

As for spending increases....

Hmmmm. GW is a bit more understandable after 9/11. How could Obama rack up a deficit greater than all prior president's only spending at an 2% higher rate?

You do realize that there's 2 sides to deficits, right? You say a lot of ignorant shit, that one takes them all.

Sledog

Yeah color me stupid maybe it's the chart from the "short, contemporary news and opinion through the lens of Austrian economics and libertarian political economy". Oh and the doubling of the debt.

TierbsHsotBoobs

Sledog said:

Yeah color me stupid maybe it's the chart from the "short, contemporary news and opinion through the lens of Austrian economics and libertarian political economy". Oh and the doubling of the debt.