Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Budget
Comments
-
WTF is your speed limit IQ talking about? I wish it almost doubled under Reagan, but it did go up a hell of a lot more than it did over the last 8 year...2001400ex said:
And the economy more than doubled and debt about tripled. Missing context much?HoustonHusky said:
And dumb.CuntWaffle said:
Hondo is mad2001400ex said:
It's clear you don't understand them. Want me to break it down to the 8th grade level so you can understand it like we do for doogie?CuntWaffle said:Yay a thread with more useless charts
Or how about this. You refute the charts with information on how tax revenue grew after the tax cuts.
Govt revenues almost doubled under 8 years of Reagan. HondoFS...
No shit the govt has always had a spending problem. Somebody else has been telling you that for a couple of pages now and you were disagreeing with him, and now you suddenly figured that out? God you are an effin moron.
Your own chart shows in the grand scheme of things all of these tax increases and decreases really doesn't impact the amount taken in as taxes as a % of the GDP much at all...the variation is mainly a function of the economy (i.e. pretty much every dip occurs in a recession). The policies (tax and otherwise) does appear to impact the rate that GDP does grow (as shown by the last 8 years of shitty growth in what should have been an absolute boom after the "Great Recession" versus what even you pointed out as being Reagan's much greater growth of the overall economy).
Glad to see the new short buses have wifi installed so we can be graced by your stupidity. Carry on now...
-
Breathe through your nose mutt.dflea said:
And now that the Obamapologists are done using that weak fucking excuse, you're going to start using it?salemcoog said:
A buck 5 over 10 years.CirrhosisDawg said:
The budget congress approved authorizes another $1.5 trillion of deficit spending over the next 10 years. If congress approves. Debt/gdp is already over 100%. You are a yes?salemcoog said:Next thing you know there will be a new tax plan.
It's been a rough weak for the left, especially with the travel bans lifted.
But Russia!!!!!
Oh yeah, that shit's fallin apart too.
T's and P's to libtard for a safe weekend that doesn't involve belts or sheets.
No problem if true considering the spending spree of the last 12 years.
Debt/*gnp is only a problem at around 120. At least that’s what all Obamapologists told me when He was the QB. And it will only lower as time goes on.
Drop in the bucket considering the friendly economic conditions present in the here and now.
Why am I not surprised?
What a fucking twat you are.
Debt to gnp isn’t near 120 now and it’s not forecasted to sniff it anytime soon. It wasn’t an excuse. It was a commentary. The big bounce back from the Great Recession is afoot. While the ratio is forecast to remain steady for a few years, it has a better shot of lowering. Unless we go to war against China/Russia, there are no more $3 Trillion “wars” to be taken on. And if that were to happen, debt is the least of our concerns. The dirty work has been done. And it’s maintenance money now. -
*gdpsalemcoog said:
Breathe through your nose mutt.dflea said:
And now that the Obamapologists are done using that weak fucking excuse, you're going to start using it?salemcoog said:
A buck 5 over 10 years.CirrhosisDawg said:
The budget congress approved authorizes another $1.5 trillion of deficit spending over the next 10 years. If congress approves. Debt/gdp is already over 100%. You are a yes?salemcoog said:Next thing you know there will be a new tax plan.
It's been a rough weak for the left, especially with the travel bans lifted.
But Russia!!!!!
Oh yeah, that shit's fallin apart too.
T's and P's to libtard for a safe weekend that doesn't involve belts or sheets.
No problem if true considering the spending spree of the last 12 years.
Debt/*gnp is only a problem at around 120. At least that’s what all Obamapologists told me when He was the QB. And it will only lower as time goes on.
Drop in the bucket considering the friendly economic conditions present in the here and now.
Why am I not surprised?
What a fucking twat you are.
Debt to gnp isn’t near 120 now and it’s not forecasted to sniff it anytime soon. It wasn’t an excuse. It was a commentary. The big bounce back from the Great Recession is afoot. While the ratio is forecast to remain steady for a few years, it has a better shot of lowering. Unless we go to war against China/Russia, there are no more 3 TT “wars” to be taken on. And if that were to happen, debt is the least of our concerns. The dirty work has been done. And it’s maintenance money now. -
First bold. I've been talking about spending. Dumbass.HoustonHusky said:
WTF is your speed limit IQ talking about? I wish it almost doubled under Reagan, but it did go up a hell of a lot more than it did over the last 8 year...2001400ex said:
And the economy more than doubled and debt about tripled. Missing context much?HoustonHusky said:
And dumb.CuntWaffle said:
Hondo is mad2001400ex said:
It's clear you don't understand them. Want me to break it down to the 8th grade level so you can understand it like we do for doogie?CuntWaffle said:Yay a thread with more useless charts
Or how about this. You refute the charts with information on how tax revenue grew after the tax cuts.
Govt revenues almost doubled under 8 years of Reagan. HondoFS...
No shit the govt has always had a spending problem. Somebody else has been telling you that for a couple of pages now and you were disagreeing with him, and now you suddenly figured that out? God you are an effin moron.
Your own chart shows in the grand scheme of things all of these tax increases and decreases really doesn't impact the amount taken in as taxes as a % of the GDP much at all...the variation is mainly a function of the economy (i.e. pretty much every dip occurs in a recession). The policies (tax and otherwise) does appear to impact the rate that GDP does grow (as shown by the last 8 years of shitty growth in what should have been an absolute boom after the "Great Recession" versus what even you pointed out as being Reagan's much greater growth of the overall economy).
Glad to see the new short buses have wifi installed so we can be graced by your stupidity. Carry on now...
Second bold. You are a complete fucking idiot if you think moving 3 to 4 precent of GDP isn't that big of a deal. If revenues went up 3% of GDP this year, we'd go from a $600 billion deficit to a surplus. But you are saying that variation doesn't have an impact? -
Yes, you have been talking out your ass. Agreed.
-
Hondo is mad
-
Prolly in the garage fixing his 15 year old atv, while listening to New ATV ad’s on the football game in the background-while others are out riding theirs today.
-
And stupid. Really fucking stupid.CuntWaffle said:Hondo is mad
-
Then refute my facts with actual facts.HoustonHusky said: -
Comedy from the guy that screams every kids are going to die every time some future increase in spending is reduced.2001400ex said:
First bold. I've been talking about spending. Dumbass.HoustonHusky said:
WTF is your speed limit IQ talking about? I wish it almost doubled under Reagan, but it did go up a hell of a lot more than it did over the last 8 year...2001400ex said:
And the economy more than doubled and debt about tripled. Missing context much?HoustonHusky said:
And dumb.CuntWaffle said:
Hondo is mad2001400ex said:
It's clear you don't understand them. Want me to break it down to the 8th grade level so you can understand it like we do for doogie?CuntWaffle said:Yay a thread with more useless charts
Or how about this. You refute the charts with information on how tax revenue grew after the tax cuts.
Govt revenues almost doubled under 8 years of Reagan. HondoFS...
No shit the govt has always had a spending problem. Somebody else has been telling you that for a couple of pages now and you were disagreeing with him, and now you suddenly figured that out? God you are an effin moron.
Your own chart shows in the grand scheme of things all of these tax increases and decreases really doesn't impact the amount taken in as taxes as a % of the GDP much at all...the variation is mainly a function of the economy (i.e. pretty much every dip occurs in a recession). The policies (tax and otherwise) does appear to impact the rate that GDP does grow (as shown by the last 8 years of shitty growth in what should have been an absolute boom after the "Great Recession" versus what even you pointed out as being Reagan's much greater growth of the overall economy).
Glad to see the new short buses have wifi installed so we can be graced by your stupidity. Carry on now...
Second bold. You are a complete fucking idiot if you think moving 3 to 4 precent of GDP isn't that big of a deal. If revenues went up 3% of GDP this year, we'd go from a $600 billion deficit to a surplus. But you are saying that variation doesn't have an impact?
First, as you yourself fucking said...rates are "relatively low compared to the 60s through mid 80s." Yet by your own plot somehow, magically the govt is taking in about the same % of revenue now as it did then. HondoFS.
You said "This chart needs better scale. But tax cuts in 1986. Tax increase in 1993. Tax cuts in 2001, 2003, 2008. Tax increase in 2011. You can figure the rest out." and then show a chart that basically says you are a moron.
- The 1986 was a tax reform act sponsored in part by Gephardt and was defined as revenue-neutral. It wasn't just tax cuts...it got rid of a bunch of tax loopholes, etc.
- You are a moron if you think the % increase in the 1990s was tax and not the internet boom (you can go pull the numbers on the increase in capital gains revenues from stock).
- You say 2001 tax cut, but somehow your chart shows revenues cratering in 1999-2000. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the Internet bubble popping and the recession...
- 2003 tax cut, yet somehow revenues as a % of GDP went up. Huh....
- 2008 yet again, somehow someway revenues as a % of GDP went down BEFORE any tax cuts were passed. Its like its magic. Or your a moron. Or both.
God you are a fucking moron.
-
-
Of course recessions and expansions have an effect on revenues but that's why the chart is based on revenue as a percentage of GDP dumbass. Everything being equal, revenues should grow in relation to tax increases and should be relatively flat as a percentage of GDP. Look at the last 3 years as an example.HoustonHusky said:
Comedy from the guy that screams every kids are going to die every time some future increase in spending is reduced.2001400ex said:
First bold. I've been talking about spending. Dumbass.HoustonHusky said:
WTF is your speed limit IQ talking about? I wish it almost doubled under Reagan, but it did go up a hell of a lot more than it did over the last 8 year...2001400ex said:
And the economy more than doubled and debt about tripled. Missing context much?HoustonHusky said:
And dumb.CuntWaffle said:
Hondo is mad2001400ex said:
It's clear you don't understand them. Want me to break it down to the 8th grade level so you can understand it like we do for doogie?CuntWaffle said:Yay a thread with more useless charts
Or how about this. You refute the charts with information on how tax revenue grew after the tax cuts.
Govt revenues almost doubled under 8 years of Reagan. HondoFS...
No shit the govt has always had a spending problem. Somebody else has been telling you that for a couple of pages now and you were disagreeing with him, and now you suddenly figured that out? God you are an effin moron.
Your own chart shows in the grand scheme of things all of these tax increases and decreases really doesn't impact the amount taken in as taxes as a % of the GDP much at all...the variation is mainly a function of the economy (i.e. pretty much every dip occurs in a recession). The policies (tax and otherwise) does appear to impact the rate that GDP does grow (as shown by the last 8 years of shitty growth in what should have been an absolute boom after the "Great Recession" versus what even you pointed out as being Reagan's much greater growth of the overall economy).
Glad to see the new short buses have wifi installed so we can be graced by your stupidity. Carry on now...
Second bold. You are a complete fucking idiot if you think moving 3 to 4 precent of GDP isn't that big of a deal. If revenues went up 3% of GDP this year, we'd go from a $600 billion deficit to a surplus. But you are saying that variation doesn't have an impact?
First, as you yourself fucking said...rates are "relatively low compared to the 60s through mid 80s." Yet by your own plot somehow, magically the govt is taking in about the same % of revenue now as it did then. HondoFS.
You said "This chart needs better scale. But tax cuts in 1986. Tax increase in 1993. Tax cuts in 2001, 2003, 2008. Tax increase in 2011. You can figure the rest out." and then show a chart that basically says you are a moron.
- The 1986 was a tax reform act sponsored in part by Gephardt and was defined as revenue-neutral. It wasn't just tax cuts...it got rid of a bunch of tax loopholes, etc.
- You are a moron if you think the % increase in the 1990s was tax and not the internet boom (you can go pull the numbers on the increase in capital gains revenues from stock).
- You say 2001 tax cut, but somehow your chart shows revenues cratering in 1999-2000. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the Internet bubble popping and the recession...
- 2003 tax cut, yet somehow revenues as a % of GDP went up. Huh....
- 2008 yet again, somehow someway revenues as a % of GDP went down BEFORE any tax cuts were passed. Its like its magic. Or your a moron. Or both.
God you are a fucking moron.
I do chuckle at you saying that the 1986 tax cuts were revenue neutral with evidence to the contrary right in front of you. And there was no recession until 1991 so you can't blame the decrease on that.
Actually if you look at the chart, 2000 was the highest revenue year. Not cratering in 1999.
Nice dissertation tho on how you completely make shit up and not even have a basic understanding of the chart you are looking at, but using it to make your point. -
Ants are thankful you are alive because at least they are smarter than something on this planet. I'm too lazy and distracted to point out all that is stupid in your reply, so lets just do one (of many wrong and wacky) claims:2001400ex said:
Of course recessions and expansions have an effect on revenues but that's why the chart is based on revenue as a percentage of GDP dumbass. Everything being equal, revenues should grow in relation to tax increases and should be relatively flat as a percentage of GDP. Look at the last 3 years as an example.HoustonHusky said:
Comedy from the guy that screams every kids are going to die every time some future increase in spending is reduced.2001400ex said:
First bold. I've been talking about spending. Dumbass.HoustonHusky said:
WTF is your speed limit IQ talking about? I wish it almost doubled under Reagan, but it did go up a hell of a lot more than it did over the last 8 year...2001400ex said:
And the economy more than doubled and debt about tripled. Missing context much?HoustonHusky said:
And dumb.CuntWaffle said:
Hondo is mad2001400ex said:
It's clear you don't understand them. Want me to break it down to the 8th grade level so you can understand it like we do for doogie?CuntWaffle said:Yay a thread with more useless charts
Or how about this. You refute the charts with information on how tax revenue grew after the tax cuts.
Govt revenues almost doubled under 8 years of Reagan. HondoFS...
No shit the govt has always had a spending problem. Somebody else has been telling you that for a couple of pages now and you were disagreeing with him, and now you suddenly figured that out? God you are an effin moron.
Your own chart shows in the grand scheme of things all of these tax increases and decreases really doesn't impact the amount taken in as taxes as a % of the GDP much at all...the variation is mainly a function of the economy (i.e. pretty much every dip occurs in a recession). The policies (tax and otherwise) does appear to impact the rate that GDP does grow (as shown by the last 8 years of shitty growth in what should have been an absolute boom after the "Great Recession" versus what even you pointed out as being Reagan's much greater growth of the overall economy).
Glad to see the new short buses have wifi installed so we can be graced by your stupidity. Carry on now...
Second bold. You are a complete fucking idiot if you think moving 3 to 4 precent of GDP isn't that big of a deal. If revenues went up 3% of GDP this year, we'd go from a $600 billion deficit to a surplus. But you are saying that variation doesn't have an impact?
First, as you yourself fucking said...rates are "relatively low compared to the 60s through mid 80s." Yet by your own plot somehow, magically the govt is taking in about the same % of revenue now as it did then. HondoFS.
You said "This chart needs better scale. But tax cuts in 1986. Tax increase in 1993. Tax cuts in 2001, 2003, 2008. Tax increase in 2011. You can figure the rest out." and then show a chart that basically says you are a moron.
- The 1986 was a tax reform act sponsored in part by Gephardt and was defined as revenue-neutral. It wasn't just tax cuts...it got rid of a bunch of tax loopholes, etc.
- You are a moron if you think the % increase in the 1990s was tax and not the internet boom (you can go pull the numbers on the increase in capital gains revenues from stock).
- You say 2001 tax cut, but somehow your chart shows revenues cratering in 1999-2000. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the Internet bubble popping and the recession...
- 2003 tax cut, yet somehow revenues as a % of GDP went up. Huh....
- 2008 yet again, somehow someway revenues as a % of GDP went down BEFORE any tax cuts were passed. Its like its magic. Or your a moron. Or both.
God you are a fucking moron.
I do chuckle at you saying that the 1986 tax cuts were revenue neutral with evidence to the contrary right in front of you. And there was no recession until 1991 so you can't blame the decrease on that.
Actually if you look at the chart, 2000 was the highest revenue year. Not cratering in 1999.
Nice dissertation tho on how you completely make shit up and not even have a basic understanding of the chart you are looking at, but using it to make your point.
(from one of the first links that came up in Google, and a Liberal one at that):
https://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/how-republicans-ditched-tax-reform-for-tax-cuts
The 1986 effort had one simple idea at its core: revenue neutrality. Some taxes would be cut and some would be raised, but the over-all money taken in by the federal government would remain the same. The idea was to make the tax code fairer and more efficient, not to cut taxes for the sake of cutting taxes. Every serious legislative effort in recent years that proclaims to be “tax reform” has abided by this simple metric. Some policymakers have argued that tax reform should also have “distributional neutrality,” so that that no income group is better or worse off after reform. But, at the very least, tax reform as a concept with any meaning is about changing the code in a way that doesn’t add to the national debt.
Go distract yourself with some shiny objects or something...
-
It's clear what the intent of the tax cuts was. Yes they intended it to be revenue neutral but it clearly wasn't. And you can look at pretty much every metric and come to that same conclusion. The interesting thing is, that tax cut was bi partisan, both parties had there skin in the game.HoustonHusky said:
Ants are thankful you are alive because at least they are smarter than something on this planet. I'm too lazy and distracted to point out all that is stupid in your reply, so lets just do one (of many wrong and wacky) claims:2001400ex said:
Of course recessions and expansions have an effect on revenues but that's why the chart is based on revenue as a percentage of GDP dumbass. Everything being equal, revenues should grow in relation to tax increases and should be relatively flat as a percentage of GDP. Look at the last 3 years as an example.HoustonHusky said:
Comedy from the guy that screams every kids are going to die every time some future increase in spending is reduced.2001400ex said:
First bold. I've been talking about spending. Dumbass.HoustonHusky said:
WTF is your speed limit IQ talking about? I wish it almost doubled under Reagan, but it did go up a hell of a lot more than it did over the last 8 year...2001400ex said:
And the economy more than doubled and debt about tripled. Missing context much?HoustonHusky said:
And dumb.CuntWaffle said:
Hondo is mad2001400ex said:
It's clear you don't understand them. Want me to break it down to the 8th grade level so you can understand it like we do for doogie?CuntWaffle said:Yay a thread with more useless charts
Or how about this. You refute the charts with information on how tax revenue grew after the tax cuts.
Govt revenues almost doubled under 8 years of Reagan. HondoFS...
No shit the govt has always had a spending problem. Somebody else has been telling you that for a couple of pages now and you were disagreeing with him, and now you suddenly figured that out? God you are an effin moron.
Your own chart shows in the grand scheme of things all of these tax increases and decreases really doesn't impact the amount taken in as taxes as a % of the GDP much at all...the variation is mainly a function of the economy (i.e. pretty much every dip occurs in a recession). The policies (tax and otherwise) does appear to impact the rate that GDP does grow (as shown by the last 8 years of shitty growth in what should have been an absolute boom after the "Great Recession" versus what even you pointed out as being Reagan's much greater growth of the overall economy).
Glad to see the new short buses have wifi installed so we can be graced by your stupidity. Carry on now...
Second bold. You are a complete fucking idiot if you think moving 3 to 4 precent of GDP isn't that big of a deal. If revenues went up 3% of GDP this year, we'd go from a $600 billion deficit to a surplus. But you are saying that variation doesn't have an impact?
First, as you yourself fucking said...rates are "relatively low compared to the 60s through mid 80s." Yet by your own plot somehow, magically the govt is taking in about the same % of revenue now as it did then. HondoFS.
You said "This chart needs better scale. But tax cuts in 1986. Tax increase in 1993. Tax cuts in 2001, 2003, 2008. Tax increase in 2011. You can figure the rest out." and then show a chart that basically says you are a moron.
- The 1986 was a tax reform act sponsored in part by Gephardt and was defined as revenue-neutral. It wasn't just tax cuts...it got rid of a bunch of tax loopholes, etc.
- You are a moron if you think the % increase in the 1990s was tax and not the internet boom (you can go pull the numbers on the increase in capital gains revenues from stock).
- You say 2001 tax cut, but somehow your chart shows revenues cratering in 1999-2000. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the Internet bubble popping and the recession...
- 2003 tax cut, yet somehow revenues as a % of GDP went up. Huh....
- 2008 yet again, somehow someway revenues as a % of GDP went down BEFORE any tax cuts were passed. Its like its magic. Or your a moron. Or both.
God you are a fucking moron.
I do chuckle at you saying that the 1986 tax cuts were revenue neutral with evidence to the contrary right in front of you. And there was no recession until 1991 so you can't blame the decrease on that.
Actually if you look at the chart, 2000 was the highest revenue year. Not cratering in 1999.
Nice dissertation tho on how you completely make shit up and not even have a basic understanding of the chart you are looking at, but using it to make your point.
(from one of the first links that came up in Google, and a Liberal one at that):
https://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/how-republicans-ditched-tax-reform-for-tax-cuts
The 1986 effort had one simple idea at its core: revenue neutrality. Some taxes would be cut and some would be raised, but the over-all money taken in by the federal government would remain the same. The idea was to make the tax code fairer and more efficient, not to cut taxes for the sake of cutting taxes. Every serious legislative effort in recent years that proclaims to be “tax reform” has abided by this simple metric. Some policymakers have argued that tax reform should also have “distributional neutrality,” so that that no income group is better or worse off after reform. But, at the very least, tax reform as a concept with any meaning is about changing the code in a way that doesn’t add to the national debt.
Go distract yourself with some shiny objects or something...
That being said, you are making my point. Even when politicians attempt tax cuts to be revenue neutral, the end result isn't revenue neutral. -
Every time I think you can't say anything dumber you do. The 1986 was designed to be revenue neutral...if it wasn't its because it wasn't the tax code it was other things in the economy driving it. My entire point that you still cannot understand. Hence the "tax increases" Bush signed in 1990 having no real impact on you dumb chart as well. The variation is primary driven by the overall economy and not some nominal tax decrease or increase...its why every downward slope in that chart is match to a recession in the overall economy2001400ex said:
It's clear what the intent of the tax cuts was. Yes they intended it to be revenue neutral but it clearly wasn't. And you can look at pretty much every metric and come to that same conclusion. The interesting thing is, that tax cut was bi partisan, both parties had there skin in the game.HoustonHusky said:
Ants are thankful you are alive because at least they are smarter than something on this planet. I'm too lazy and distracted to point out all that is stupid in your reply, so lets just do one (of many wrong and wacky) claims:2001400ex said:
Of course recessions and expansions have an effect on revenues but that's why the chart is based on revenue as a percentage of GDP dumbass. Everything being equal, revenues should grow in relation to tax increases and should be relatively flat as a percentage of GDP. Look at the last 3 years as an example.HoustonHusky said:
Comedy from the guy that screams every kids are going to die every time some future increase in spending is reduced.2001400ex said:
First bold. I've been talking about spending. Dumbass.HoustonHusky said:
WTF is your speed limit IQ talking about? I wish it almost doubled under Reagan, but it did go up a hell of a lot more than it did over the last 8 year...2001400ex said:
And the economy more than doubled and debt about tripled. Missing context much?HoustonHusky said:
And dumb.CuntWaffle said:
Hondo is mad2001400ex said:
It's clear you don't understand them. Want me to break it down to the 8th grade level so you can understand it like we do for doogie?CuntWaffle said:Yay a thread with more useless charts
Or how about this. You refute the charts with information on how tax revenue grew after the tax cuts.
Govt revenues almost doubled under 8 years of Reagan. HondoFS...
No shit the govt has always had a spending problem. Somebody else has been telling you that for a couple of pages now and you were disagreeing with him, and now you suddenly figured that out? God you are an effin moron.
Your own chart shows in the grand scheme of things all of these tax increases and decreases really doesn't impact the amount taken in as taxes as a % of the GDP much at all...the variation is mainly a function of the economy (i.e. pretty much every dip occurs in a recession). The policies (tax and otherwise) does appear to impact the rate that GDP does grow (as shown by the last 8 years of shitty growth in what should have been an absolute boom after the "Great Recession" versus what even you pointed out as being Reagan's much greater growth of the overall economy).
Glad to see the new short buses have wifi installed so we can be graced by your stupidity. Carry on now...
Second bold. You are a complete fucking idiot if you think moving 3 to 4 precent of GDP isn't that big of a deal. If revenues went up 3% of GDP this year, we'd go from a $600 billion deficit to a surplus. But you are saying that variation doesn't have an impact?
First, as you yourself fucking said...rates are "relatively low compared to the 60s through mid 80s." Yet by your own plot somehow, magically the govt is taking in about the same % of revenue now as it did then. HondoFS.
You said "This chart needs better scale. But tax cuts in 1986. Tax increase in 1993. Tax cuts in 2001, 2003, 2008. Tax increase in 2011. You can figure the rest out." and then show a chart that basically says you are a moron.
- The 1986 was a tax reform act sponsored in part by Gephardt and was defined as revenue-neutral. It wasn't just tax cuts...it got rid of a bunch of tax loopholes, etc.
- You are a moron if you think the % increase in the 1990s was tax and not the internet boom (you can go pull the numbers on the increase in capital gains revenues from stock).
- You say 2001 tax cut, but somehow your chart shows revenues cratering in 1999-2000. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the Internet bubble popping and the recession...
- 2003 tax cut, yet somehow revenues as a % of GDP went up. Huh....
- 2008 yet again, somehow someway revenues as a % of GDP went down BEFORE any tax cuts were passed. Its like its magic. Or your a moron. Or both.
God you are a fucking moron.
I do chuckle at you saying that the 1986 tax cuts were revenue neutral with evidence to the contrary right in front of you. And there was no recession until 1991 so you can't blame the decrease on that.
Actually if you look at the chart, 2000 was the highest revenue year. Not cratering in 1999.
Nice dissertation tho on how you completely make shit up and not even have a basic understanding of the chart you are looking at, but using it to make your point.
(from one of the first links that came up in Google, and a Liberal one at that):
https://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/how-republicans-ditched-tax-reform-for-tax-cuts
The 1986 effort had one simple idea at its core: revenue neutrality. Some taxes would be cut and some would be raised, but the over-all money taken in by the federal government would remain the same. The idea was to make the tax code fairer and more efficient, not to cut taxes for the sake of cutting taxes. Every serious legislative effort in recent years that proclaims to be “tax reform” has abided by this simple metric. Some policymakers have argued that tax reform should also have “distributional neutrality,” so that that no income group is better or worse off after reform. But, at the very least, tax reform as a concept with any meaning is about changing the code in a way that doesn’t add to the national debt.
Go distract yourself with some shiny objects or something...
That being said, you are making my point. Even when politicians attempt tax cuts to be revenue neutral, the end result isn't revenue neutral.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S
Moron. Its sad, but you are just a fucking moron. Try not to keep typing and displaying it for everyone to see.
-
Except your own link shows that there was no recession in 1986 and revenue went down. Da Fuq are you still arguing for?HoustonHusky said:
Every time I think you can't say anything dumber you do. The 1986 was designed to be revenue neutral...if it wasn't its because it wasn't the tax code it was other things in the economy driving it. My entire point that you still cannot understand. Hence the "tax increases" Bush signed in 1990 having no real impact on you dumb chart as well. The variation is primary driven by the overall economy and not some nominal tax decrease or increase...its why every downward slope in that chart is match to a recession in the overall economy2001400ex said:
It's clear what the intent of the tax cuts was. Yes they intended it to be revenue neutral but it clearly wasn't. And you can look at pretty much every metric and come to that same conclusion. The interesting thing is, that tax cut was bi partisan, both parties had there skin in the game.HoustonHusky said:
Ants are thankful you are alive because at least they are smarter than something on this planet. I'm too lazy and distracted to point out all that is stupid in your reply, so lets just do one (of many wrong and wacky) claims:2001400ex said:
Of course recessions and expansions have an effect on revenues but that's why the chart is based on revenue as a percentage of GDP dumbass. Everything being equal, revenues should grow in relation to tax increases and should be relatively flat as a percentage of GDP. Look at the last 3 years as an example.HoustonHusky said:
Comedy from the guy that screams every kids are going to die every time some future increase in spending is reduced.2001400ex said:
First bold. I've been talking about spending. Dumbass.HoustonHusky said:
WTF is your speed limit IQ talking about? I wish it almost doubled under Reagan, but it did go up a hell of a lot more than it did over the last 8 year...2001400ex said:
And the economy more than doubled and debt about tripled. Missing context much?HoustonHusky said:
And dumb.CuntWaffle said:
Hondo is mad2001400ex said:
It's clear you don't understand them. Want me to break it down to the 8th grade level so you can understand it like we do for doogie?CuntWaffle said:Yay a thread with more useless charts
Or how about this. You refute the charts with information on how tax revenue grew after the tax cuts.
Govt revenues almost doubled under 8 years of Reagan. HondoFS...
No shit the govt has always had a spending problem. Somebody else has been telling you that for a couple of pages now and you were disagreeing with him, and now you suddenly figured that out? God you are an effin moron.
Your own chart shows in the grand scheme of things all of these tax increases and decreases really doesn't impact the amount taken in as taxes as a % of the GDP much at all...the variation is mainly a function of the economy (i.e. pretty much every dip occurs in a recession). The policies (tax and otherwise) does appear to impact the rate that GDP does grow (as shown by the last 8 years of shitty growth in what should have been an absolute boom after the "Great Recession" versus what even you pointed out as being Reagan's much greater growth of the overall economy).
Glad to see the new short buses have wifi installed so we can be graced by your stupidity. Carry on now...
Second bold. You are a complete fucking idiot if you think moving 3 to 4 precent of GDP isn't that big of a deal. If revenues went up 3% of GDP this year, we'd go from a $600 billion deficit to a surplus. But you are saying that variation doesn't have an impact?
First, as you yourself fucking said...rates are "relatively low compared to the 60s through mid 80s." Yet by your own plot somehow, magically the govt is taking in about the same % of revenue now as it did then. HondoFS.
You said "This chart needs better scale. But tax cuts in 1986. Tax increase in 1993. Tax cuts in 2001, 2003, 2008. Tax increase in 2011. You can figure the rest out." and then show a chart that basically says you are a moron.
- The 1986 was a tax reform act sponsored in part by Gephardt and was defined as revenue-neutral. It wasn't just tax cuts...it got rid of a bunch of tax loopholes, etc.
- You are a moron if you think the % increase in the 1990s was tax and not the internet boom (you can go pull the numbers on the increase in capital gains revenues from stock).
- You say 2001 tax cut, but somehow your chart shows revenues cratering in 1999-2000. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the Internet bubble popping and the recession...
- 2003 tax cut, yet somehow revenues as a % of GDP went up. Huh....
- 2008 yet again, somehow someway revenues as a % of GDP went down BEFORE any tax cuts were passed. Its like its magic. Or your a moron. Or both.
God you are a fucking moron.
I do chuckle at you saying that the 1986 tax cuts were revenue neutral with evidence to the contrary right in front of you. And there was no recession until 1991 so you can't blame the decrease on that.
Actually if you look at the chart, 2000 was the highest revenue year. Not cratering in 1999.
Nice dissertation tho on how you completely make shit up and not even have a basic understanding of the chart you are looking at, but using it to make your point.
(from one of the first links that came up in Google, and a Liberal one at that):
https://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/how-republicans-ditched-tax-reform-for-tax-cuts
The 1986 effort had one simple idea at its core: revenue neutrality. Some taxes would be cut and some would be raised, but the over-all money taken in by the federal government would remain the same. The idea was to make the tax code fairer and more efficient, not to cut taxes for the sake of cutting taxes. Every serious legislative effort in recent years that proclaims to be “tax reform” has abided by this simple metric. Some policymakers have argued that tax reform should also have “distributional neutrality,” so that that no income group is better or worse off after reform. But, at the very least, tax reform as a concept with any meaning is about changing the code in a way that doesn’t add to the national debt.
Go distract yourself with some shiny objects or something...
That being said, you are making my point. Even when politicians attempt tax cuts to be revenue neutral, the end result isn't revenue neutral.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S
Moron. Its sad, but you are just a fucking moron. Try not to keep typing and displaying it for everyone to see. -
No, it wasn't a recession. But it was slowing down from the almost ~10% GDP growth per year of the previous few years. And after the budget deal in 1986 revenues as a % of GDP actually went up slightly in 1987 vs. 86 (and to nobody's surprise but yours GDP was up as well).2001400ex said:
Except your own link shows that there was no recession in 1986 and revenue went down. Da Fuq are you still arguing for?HoustonHusky said:
Every time I think you can't say anything dumber you do. The 1986 was designed to be revenue neutral...if it wasn't its because it wasn't the tax code it was other things in the economy driving it. My entire point that you still cannot understand. Hence the "tax increases" Bush signed in 1990 having no real impact on you dumb chart as well. The variation is primary driven by the overall economy and not some nominal tax decrease or increase...its why every downward slope in that chart is match to a recession in the overall economy2001400ex said:
It's clear what the intent of the tax cuts was. Yes they intended it to be revenue neutral but it clearly wasn't. And you can look at pretty much every metric and come to that same conclusion. The interesting thing is, that tax cut was bi partisan, both parties had there skin in the game.HoustonHusky said:
Ants are thankful you are alive because at least they are smarter than something on this planet. I'm too lazy and distracted to point out all that is stupid in your reply, so lets just do one (of many wrong and wacky) claims:2001400ex said:
Of course recessions and expansions have an effect on revenues but that's why the chart is based on revenue as a percentage of GDP dumbass. Everything being equal, revenues should grow in relation to tax increases and should be relatively flat as a percentage of GDP. Look at the last 3 years as an example.HoustonHusky said:
Comedy from the guy that screams every kids are going to die every time some future increase in spending is reduced.2001400ex said:
First bold. I've been talking about spending. Dumbass.HoustonHusky said:
WTF is your speed limit IQ talking about? I wish it almost doubled under Reagan, but it did go up a hell of a lot more than it did over the last 8 year...2001400ex said:
And the economy more than doubled and debt about tripled. Missing context much?HoustonHusky said:
And dumb.CuntWaffle said:
Hondo is mad2001400ex said:
It's clear you don't understand them. Want me to break it down to the 8th grade level so you can understand it like we do for doogie?CuntWaffle said:Yay a thread with more useless charts
Or how about this. You refute the charts with information on how tax revenue grew after the tax cuts.
Govt revenues almost doubled under 8 years of Reagan. HondoFS...
No shit the govt has always had a spending problem. Somebody else has been telling you that for a couple of pages now and you were disagreeing with him, and now you suddenly figured that out? God you are an effin moron.
Your own chart shows in the grand scheme of things all of these tax increases and decreases really doesn't impact the amount taken in as taxes as a % of the GDP much at all...the variation is mainly a function of the economy (i.e. pretty much every dip occurs in a recession). The policies (tax and otherwise) does appear to impact the rate that GDP does grow (as shown by the last 8 years of shitty growth in what should have been an absolute boom after the "Great Recession" versus what even you pointed out as being Reagan's much greater growth of the overall economy).
Glad to see the new short buses have wifi installed so we can be graced by your stupidity. Carry on now...
Second bold. You are a complete fucking idiot if you think moving 3 to 4 precent of GDP isn't that big of a deal. If revenues went up 3% of GDP this year, we'd go from a $600 billion deficit to a surplus. But you are saying that variation doesn't have an impact?
First, as you yourself fucking said...rates are "relatively low compared to the 60s through mid 80s." Yet by your own plot somehow, magically the govt is taking in about the same % of revenue now as it did then. HondoFS.
You said "This chart needs better scale. But tax cuts in 1986. Tax increase in 1993. Tax cuts in 2001, 2003, 2008. Tax increase in 2011. You can figure the rest out." and then show a chart that basically says you are a moron.
- The 1986 was a tax reform act sponsored in part by Gephardt and was defined as revenue-neutral. It wasn't just tax cuts...it got rid of a bunch of tax loopholes, etc.
- You are a moron if you think the % increase in the 1990s was tax and not the internet boom (you can go pull the numbers on the increase in capital gains revenues from stock).
- You say 2001 tax cut, but somehow your chart shows revenues cratering in 1999-2000. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the Internet bubble popping and the recession...
- 2003 tax cut, yet somehow revenues as a % of GDP went up. Huh....
- 2008 yet again, somehow someway revenues as a % of GDP went down BEFORE any tax cuts were passed. Its like its magic. Or your a moron. Or both.
God you are a fucking moron.
I do chuckle at you saying that the 1986 tax cuts were revenue neutral with evidence to the contrary right in front of you. And there was no recession until 1991 so you can't blame the decrease on that.
Actually if you look at the chart, 2000 was the highest revenue year. Not cratering in 1999.
Nice dissertation tho on how you completely make shit up and not even have a basic understanding of the chart you are looking at, but using it to make your point.
(from one of the first links that came up in Google, and a Liberal one at that):
https://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/how-republicans-ditched-tax-reform-for-tax-cuts
The 1986 effort had one simple idea at its core: revenue neutrality. Some taxes would be cut and some would be raised, but the over-all money taken in by the federal government would remain the same. The idea was to make the tax code fairer and more efficient, not to cut taxes for the sake of cutting taxes. Every serious legislative effort in recent years that proclaims to be “tax reform” has abided by this simple metric. Some policymakers have argued that tax reform should also have “distributional neutrality,” so that that no income group is better or worse off after reform. But, at the very least, tax reform as a concept with any meaning is about changing the code in a way that doesn’t add to the national debt.
Go distract yourself with some shiny objects or something...
That being said, you are making my point. Even when politicians attempt tax cuts to be revenue neutral, the end result isn't revenue neutral.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S
Moron. Its sad, but you are just a fucking moron. Try not to keep typing and displaying it for everyone to see.
Why do you keep typing? Its like punching a defenseless handicapped person...I almost feel bad.
Go find a shiny object and entertain yourself. Or post something else really, really stupid on this thead...I'll leave you be and won't point out the sheer stupidity of it...
-
Da Fuq are you talking about?HoustonHusky said:
No, it wasn't a recession. But it was slowing down from the almost ~10% GDP growth per year of the previous few years. And after the budget deal in 1986 revenues as a % of GDP actually went up slightly in 1987 vs. 86 (and to nobody's surprise but yours GDP was up as well).2001400ex said:
Except your own link shows that there was no recession in 1986 and revenue went down. Da Fuq are you still arguing for?HoustonHusky said:
Every time I think you can't say anything dumber you do. The 1986 was designed to be revenue neutral...if it wasn't its because it wasn't the tax code it was other things in the economy driving it. My entire point that you still cannot understand. Hence the "tax increases" Bush signed in 1990 having no real impact on you dumb chart as well. The variation is primary driven by the overall economy and not some nominal tax decrease or increase...its why every downward slope in that chart is match to a recession in the overall economy2001400ex said:
It's clear what the intent of the tax cuts was. Yes they intended it to be revenue neutral but it clearly wasn't. And you can look at pretty much every metric and come to that same conclusion. The interesting thing is, that tax cut was bi partisan, both parties had there skin in the game.HoustonHusky said:
Ants are thankful you are alive because at least they are smarter than something on this planet. I'm too lazy and distracted to point out all that is stupid in your reply, so lets just do one (of many wrong and wacky) claims:2001400ex said:
Of course recessions and expansions have an effect on revenues but that's why the chart is based on revenue as a percentage of GDP dumbass. Everything being equal, revenues should grow in relation to tax increases and should be relatively flat as a percentage of GDP. Look at the last 3 years as an example.HoustonHusky said:
Comedy from the guy that screams every kids are going to die every time some future increase in spending is reduced.2001400ex said:
First bold. I've been talking about spending. Dumbass.HoustonHusky said:
WTF is your speed limit IQ talking about? I wish it almost doubled under Reagan, but it did go up a hell of a lot more than it did over the last 8 year...2001400ex said:
And the economy more than doubled and debt about tripled. Missing context much?HoustonHusky said:
And dumb.CuntWaffle said:
Hondo is mad2001400ex said:
It's clear you don't understand them. Want me to break it down to the 8th grade level so you can understand it like we do for doogie?CuntWaffle said:Yay a thread with more useless charts
Or how about this. You refute the charts with information on how tax revenue grew after the tax cuts.
Govt revenues almost doubled under 8 years of Reagan. HondoFS...
No shit the govt has always had a spending problem. Somebody else has been telling you that for a couple of pages now and you were disagreeing with him, and now you suddenly figured that out? God you are an effin moron.
Your own chart shows in the grand scheme of things all of these tax increases and decreases really doesn't impact the amount taken in as taxes as a % of the GDP much at all...the variation is mainly a function of the economy (i.e. pretty much every dip occurs in a recession). The policies (tax and otherwise) does appear to impact the rate that GDP does grow (as shown by the last 8 years of shitty growth in what should have been an absolute boom after the "Great Recession" versus what even you pointed out as being Reagan's much greater growth of the overall economy).
Glad to see the new short buses have wifi installed so we can be graced by your stupidity. Carry on now...
Second bold. You are a complete fucking idiot if you think moving 3 to 4 precent of GDP isn't that big of a deal. If revenues went up 3% of GDP this year, we'd go from a $600 billion deficit to a surplus. But you are saying that variation doesn't have an impact?
First, as you yourself fucking said...rates are "relatively low compared to the 60s through mid 80s." Yet by your own plot somehow, magically the govt is taking in about the same % of revenue now as it did then. HondoFS.
You said "This chart needs better scale. But tax cuts in 1986. Tax increase in 1993. Tax cuts in 2001, 2003, 2008. Tax increase in 2011. You can figure the rest out." and then show a chart that basically says you are a moron.
- The 1986 was a tax reform act sponsored in part by Gephardt and was defined as revenue-neutral. It wasn't just tax cuts...it got rid of a bunch of tax loopholes, etc.
- You are a moron if you think the % increase in the 1990s was tax and not the internet boom (you can go pull the numbers on the increase in capital gains revenues from stock).
- You say 2001 tax cut, but somehow your chart shows revenues cratering in 1999-2000. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the Internet bubble popping and the recession...
- 2003 tax cut, yet somehow revenues as a % of GDP went up. Huh....
- 2008 yet again, somehow someway revenues as a % of GDP went down BEFORE any tax cuts were passed. Its like its magic. Or your a moron. Or both.
God you are a fucking moron.
I do chuckle at you saying that the 1986 tax cuts were revenue neutral with evidence to the contrary right in front of you. And there was no recession until 1991 so you can't blame the decrease on that.
Actually if you look at the chart, 2000 was the highest revenue year. Not cratering in 1999.
Nice dissertation tho on how you completely make shit up and not even have a basic understanding of the chart you are looking at, but using it to make your point.
(from one of the first links that came up in Google, and a Liberal one at that):
https://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/how-republicans-ditched-tax-reform-for-tax-cuts
The 1986 effort had one simple idea at its core: revenue neutrality. Some taxes would be cut and some would be raised, but the over-all money taken in by the federal government would remain the same. The idea was to make the tax code fairer and more efficient, not to cut taxes for the sake of cutting taxes. Every serious legislative effort in recent years that proclaims to be “tax reform” has abided by this simple metric. Some policymakers have argued that tax reform should also have “distributional neutrality,” so that that no income group is better or worse off after reform. But, at the very least, tax reform as a concept with any meaning is about changing the code in a way that doesn’t add to the national debt.
Go distract yourself with some shiny objects or something...
That being said, you are making my point. Even when politicians attempt tax cuts to be revenue neutral, the end result isn't revenue neutral.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S
Moron. Its sad, but you are just a fucking moron. Try not to keep typing and displaying it for everyone to see.
Why do you keep typing? Its like punching a defenseless handicapped person...I almost feel bad.
Go find a shiny object and entertain yourself. Or post something else really, really stupid on this thead...I'll leave you be and won't point out the sheer stupidity of it...
http://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-year -
http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-year
What part are you confused by again moron? Now you want to debate the differences between nominal and real GDP as a basis (which is irrelevant to this discussion) because all your other claims are shit?
HondoFS... -
You'll like this one. So you are saying Obama has had greater than 3% growth every year of his presidency but his first year? Look at the top of your link.HoustonHusky said:http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-year
What part are you confused by again moron? Now you want to debate the differences between nominal and real GDP as a basis (which is irrelevant to this discussion) because all your other claims are shit?
HondoFS...
Holy shit you feel pretty stupid right now. -
I'm saying nothing of the sort... the entire point of this thread was your stupid claims about govt revenues vs GDP. You aren't inflation-adjusting govt revenues or the total annual GDP you are comparing against for your idiotic claims, so it seems dumb to me to look at inflation-adjusted numbers. But that is a thought process over your head as you have given up your original claims.2001400ex said:
You'll like this one. So you are saying Obama has had greater than 3% growth every year of his presidency but his first year? Look at the top of your link.HoustonHusky said:http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-year
What part are you confused by again moron? Now you want to debate the differences between nominal and real GDP as a basis (which is irrelevant to this discussion) because all your other claims are shit?
HondoFS...
Holy shit you feel pretty stupid right now.
God I hop the Astros win this game so I can go to bed...replying to your inane stupidity is making me dumber... -
I'm starting to think it's a one point per Hondo post loss.HoustonHusky said:
I'm saying nothing of the sort... the entire point of this thread was your stupid claims about govt revenues vs GDP. You aren't inflation-adjusting govt revenues or the total annual GDP you are comparing against for your idiotic claims, so it seems dumb to me to look at inflation-adjusted numbers. But that is a thought process over your head as you have given up your original claims.2001400ex said:
You'll like this one. So you are saying Obama has had greater than 3% growth every year of his presidency but his first year? Look at the top of your link.HoustonHusky said:http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-year
What part are you confused by again moron? Now you want to debate the differences between nominal and real GDP as a basis (which is irrelevant to this discussion) because all your other claims are shit?
HondoFS...
Holy shit you feel pretty stupid right now.
God I hop the Astros win this game so I can go to bed...replying to your inane stupidity is making me dumber... -
Trump says December 8 shut down imminent. He needs Democrat votes.doogie said:Sounds like all three branches quietly finished their business long before the Dec 8 deadline to shut down the Government and cause disruption to this amazing recovery.
Trump is incompetent and a giant pussy. No one, in this country or overseas, respects him. We absolutely need to take this to the obvious conclusion.
Close it all down. Return all power to the states. Once and for all.
You trumpanzees are free to declare China a currency manipulator, negotiate “bi-lateral” trade agreements with non-existent countries, and build a wall on the rio grande to your hearts’ content (and pay for it).
The rest of us go our own way. Deal?
Bye gif. -
You leaving?CirrhosisDawg said:
Trump says December 8 shut down imminent. He needs Democrat votes.doogie said:Sounds like all three branches quietly finished their business long before the Dec 8 deadline to shut down the Government and cause disruption to this amazing recovery.
Trump is incompetent and a giant pussy. No one, in this country or overseas, respects him. We absolutely need to take this to the obvious conclusion.
Close it all down. Return all power to the states. Once and for all.
You trumpanzees are free to declare China a currency manipulator, negotiate “bi-lateral” trade agreements with non-existent countries, and build a wall on the rio grande to your hearts’ content (and pay for it).
The rest of us go our own way. Deal?
Bye gif.
goodriddance.gif -
Who wouldn’t love to live In @Sledog’s imbecilic america?Sledog said:
You leaving?CirrhosisDawg said:
Trump says December 8 shut down imminent. He needs Democrat votes.doogie said:Sounds like all three branches quietly finished their business long before the Dec 8 deadline to shut down the Government and cause disruption to this amazing recovery.
Trump is incompetent and a giant pussy. No one, in this country or overseas, respects him. We absolutely need to take this to the obvious conclusion.
Close it all down. Return all power to the states. Once and for all.
You trumpanzees are free to declare China a currency manipulator, negotiate “bi-lateral” trade agreements with non-existent countries, and build a wall on the rio grande to your hearts’ content (and pay for it).
The rest of us go our own way. Deal?
Bye gif.
goodriddance.gif
Mutual defense, common currency, and that’s it? No more CA subsidy to poor white trash like you? Sounds like we have a deal!
-
-
You would assume he had 50 votes in the senate and 218 in the House, with GOP majorities and all? Guess not. He needs Democrat votes to pass a budget and govern.RaceBannon said:
Trump is a fool. Everyone knows it. He can’t govern.
Federalism is the answer. Shut it all down. We don’t need a federal government. States are sovereign. -
Trigger(ed)CirrhosisDawg said:
You would assume he had 50 votes in the senate and 218 in the House, with GOP majorities and all? Guess not. He needs Democrat votes to pass a budget and govern.RaceBannon said:
Trump is a fool. Everyone knows it. He can’t govern.
Federalism is the answer. Shut it all down. We don’t need a federal government. States are sovereign.
-
I thought you advocated “burn it all down?” You posted that all 2016. Now you are trump-McConnell-Ryan establishment?RaceBannon said:
Trigger(ed)CirrhosisDawg said:
You would assume he had 50 votes in the senate and 218 in the House, with GOP majorities and all? Guess not. He needs Democrat votes to pass a budget and govern.RaceBannon said:
Trump is a fool. Everyone knows it. He can’t govern.
Federalism is the answer. Shut it all down. We don’t need a federal government. States are sovereign.
Sad.
-
So we should just ship all the Confederate statues to Cali. Got it.CirrhosisDawg said:
You would assume he had 50 votes in the senate and 218 in the House, with GOP majorities and all? Guess not. He needs Democrat votes to pass a budget and govern.RaceBannon said:
Trump is a fool. Everyone knows it. He can’t govern.
Federalism is the answer. Shut it all down. We don’t need a federal government. States are sovereign.
