If some peoples taxes are going up

[The Derp]

You liberals are such liars. Go argue with the Wall Street Journal which just called you libs big fat liars on the tax reform bill.

The WSJ? I thought you hated mainstream media? So what gives? Now mainstream media isn't fake news?

And thanks for also admitting that you didn't give this any thought, and you're just parroting what other people say because you are too fat and lazy to do the work yourself.

You have to send me to mommy because you can't defend your position? What a fucking weakling; physically and intellectually.

 

[Avatar4321]

I'm sure we could amend the bill to lower those taxes as well if they convince their democratic representatives support the bill.

 

[BluesLegend]

You liberals are such liars. Go argue with the Wall Street Journal which just called you libs big fat liars on the tax reform bill.

The WSJ? I thought you hated mainstream media? So what gives? Now mainstream media isn't fake news?

And thanks for also admitting that you didn't give this any thought, and you're just parroting what other people say because you are too fat and lazy to do the work yourself.

You have to send me to mommy because you can't defend your position? What a fucking weakling; physically and intellectually.

Don't deflect, again the Wall Street Journal says liberals are lying about the tax reform bill, liars, suck it.

 

[The Derp]

Don't deflect, again the Wall Street Journal says liberals are lying about the tax reform bill, liars, suck it.

And the WSJ is wrong, as usual. Just like they were wrong about Kansas when they were trumpeting those tax cuts 5 years ago.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

BULLSHIT asshole.
You're not to fucking bright Nancy.
How many times do we have to go over the waste, fraud and abuse of the taxes we pay.
Wash rinse repeat and your ass still reeks of shit.

You don't even know what you're so angry about, or you're just a propagandist who is paid to pretend anger for the benefit of Russian propaganda. It doesn't really matter to me which case you are, you're a lazy piece of shit regardless.

All I did was ask for one specific cut...and you couldn't even pull one thing out of your big, fat ass. That's because you're a fucking lazy person (hence your fat ass), who lacks the ability to think.

I see why you call yourself "The Derp."

Every department has waste.

O. K.

Specifically.

The Military.

We have employees on the internet on taxpayer time.

Welfare fraud.

Social Security fraud.

Medicare fraud.

On and on.

And.

I'm not angry about anything.

I see no reason to raise taxes on anyone until the above is addressed.

I have cut budgets. Refused to allow excess spending at the end of the fiscal year and have cut budgets 2 to 5% below the previous years spending.

Yes. Some have claimed the end of the world and bitched, but they seemed to have made due with what they were given.

Happy now?

 

[BluesLegend]

Don't deflect, again the Wall Street Journal says liberals are lying about the tax reform bill, liars, suck it.

And the WSJ is wrong, as usual. Just like they were wrong about Kansas when they were trumpeting those tax cuts 5 years ago.

Don't be stupid, you haven't even read the article admit it.

 

[The Derp]

BULLSHIT asshole.
You're not to fucking bright Nancy.
How many times do we have to go over the waste, fraud and abuse of the taxes we pay.
Wash rinse repeat and your ass still reeks of shit.

You don't even know what you're so angry about, or you're just a propagandist who is paid to pretend anger for the benefit of Russian propaganda. It doesn't really matter to me which case you are, you're a lazy piece of shit regardless.

All I did was ask for one specific cut...and you couldn't even pull one thing out of your big, fat ass. That's because you're a fucking lazy person (hence your fat ass), who lacks the ability to think.

I see why you call yourself "The Derp."

Every department has waste.

O. K.

Specifically.

The Military.

We have employees on the internet on taxpayer time.

Welfare fraud.

Social Security fraud.

Medicare fraud.

On and on.

And.

I'm not angry about anything.

I see no reason to raise taxes on anyone until the above is addressed.

I have cut budgets. Refused to allow excess spending at the end of the fiscal year and have cut budgets 2 to 5% below the previous years spending.

Yes. Some have claimed the end of the world and bitched, but they seemed to have made due with what they were given.

Happy now?

Nope. Not happy. Again, you're just vomiting out ambiguous, arbitrary things, but you can't even name one single thing you'd cut. It's all generalized, vague nonsense by design. Fact is, you don't know what you're talking about, and you think that by posturing spending restraint, you can carry your hollow, empty argument forward.

But you can't. Because you lack the ability to do the hard work necessary to understand this topic.

Why? Because you're lazy af.

 

[The Derp]

Don't be stupid, you haven't even read the article admit it.

I did read the opinion piece (not an article, merely an opinion by the WSJ).

All other news outlets paint a much different picture.

So what we have here is a Conservative unable to distinguish between reality and fiction.

 

[The Derp]

Every department has waste.

Yet you cannot point to a specific thing in any department that is "wasteful". That's why you fall back on vague, general, ambiguous nonsense. You hope that your generalized posturing will carry your argument. It doesn't. It just makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about and you're just parroting shit other people say because you lack critical thinking skills.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Every department has waste.

Yet you cannot point to a specific thing in any department that is "wasteful". That's why you fall back on vague, general, ambiguous nonsense. You hope that your generalized posturing will carry your argument. It doesn't. It just makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about and you're just parroting shit other people say because you lack critical thinking skills.

Yeah.

O.K. Slick.

Whatever.

We've been through the details, repeatly.

No matter what anyone says, you will surely dance around the edges.

Bridges to nowhere.

False medical billing.

Buying and selling welfare benefits.

On and on.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, huge economic growth.

You can lie to yourself, but you can't lie with facts.

So Reagan's "growth" was only slightly better than Carter's by 0.2%, but was well below Clinton, Johnson, and Kennedy.

So if Reagan's "growth" was "huge", then so was Carter's.

So Reagan's "growth" was only slightly better than Carter's by 0.2%,

Yup. Even considering the deep recession needed to kill Carter's double digit inflation.

but was well below Clinton

Yeah, the Internet Bubble was cool.

Johnson, and Kennedy.

Big tax cuts work. Every time.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I know! Added $1.6 trillion, won the Cold War huge growth in GDP.

Not huge growth in GDP. Reagan's average annualized Real GDP growth was only 0.2% better than Carter's. So by your standard, Carter had "huge growth" too. And Reagan didn't win the COld War. That's a load of shit. For one, the Berlin Wall came down 10 months after Reagan left office. The Soviet Union collapsed 2 years after Reagan left office. You want to give Reagan credit for the Red Sox winning the World Series too?

So tripling the debt is cool if you can pretend that it is what caused your enemy to dissolve itself nearly two years after you left office. Fuckin' fantasyland.

Compare that to Obama, added $9.3 trillion, lost Libya, flooded Europe with refugees and averaged less than 1.5% GDP growth.

Obama created over 11,000,000 net private sector jobs, which is 11,460,000 more than Bush the Dumber created. As for Libya, what was lost? It's hilarious when Conservatives pine for tinpot, Third World dictators like Khaddafi. Well, Khaddafi was your best friend. Here's a photo with him and Rice, hanging out:

Khaddafi, Putin, Duterte, Mugabe, Assad...quite the collection of fuckups and thugs with whom you keep company.

ure, he slashed defense and then Gingrich held the line on domestic spending.You don't think the Internet Bubble was caused by his middle class tax cut...errr...I mean tax hike...

The Internet Bubble was caused by your Capital Gains Tax Cut.

Also, Gingrich didn't do shit to balance the budget. He lost the shutdown battle, got Clinton re-elected, and enacted only "welfare reform" which apparently was so shitty since all you people do is whine about welfare, which you reformed 20 years ago, today. So that means the lone policy accomplishment of the Gingrich Congress was bullshit then, or you're bullshitting now.

So which is it?

And Reagan didn't win the COld War

Carter sure as shit didn't win it, Russia was expanding before Reagan.

For one, the Berlin Wall came down 10 months after Reagan left office.

Must have been because they were scared of Carter.....
Or did Dukakis in the tank make them rethink their evil ways?

Obama created over 11,000,000 net private sector jobs,

And all it took was $9.3 trillion in added debt.
How does that compare to Reagan's job creation and $1.6 trillion in added debt?

Also, Gingrich didn't do shit to balance the budget.

Of course not, because Clinton was such a responsible budget steward.
Besides cutting defense, what other spending did Clinton slash?
What Dem spending wishes did Clinton push back against? Anything?

He lost the shutdown battle

Oh....and his loss resulted in more spending or less spending?

and enacted only "welfare reform" which apparently was so shitty since all you people do is whine about welfare, which you reformed 20 years ago, today.

Didn't Obama rollback that reform?

 

[The Derp]

We've been through the details, repeatly.

NO! YTou haven't been through the details. That's exactly the problem. If you had been through the details, you would have been able to name something you'd cut and by X amount. For instance, you could say you'd cut the F-35 Program. That would save approximately $1.5T over the lifetime of the program through 2070.

 

[The Derp]

Yup. Even considering the deep recession needed to kill Carter's double digit inflation.

So you then admit Carter had "huge growth" because his annualized GDP growth rate was only 0.2% less than Reagan's. So according to you, Carter also had "huge growth", and he was working with terrible Nixonian Fed policy. That is, if we're applying the arbitrary standard you set in place during this debate. What Carter faced was more of an obstacle than what Reagan faced. And yet, Carter still had nearly the same annualized GDP growth rate. But Carter didn't double the deficit or triple the debt. You guys did, though. Where's all your debt concern now? Nowhere. Because it's posturing.

Yeah, the Internet Bubble was cool.

Yeah, the S&L bubble was cool too. As was doubling the deficit and tripling the debt. While only producing 3 million more jobs than Obama did, who cut the deficit by 2/3 and grew the debt by 80%.

Big tax cuts work. Every time.

Nope. Wrong. Taxes were cut by 22% from 1964-1968, yet spending grew by 50%. Revenues grew by 36%, which just so happens to be the mid-point between revenue lost and spending increased. So what grew revenue 50%? Spending.

 

[The Derp]

arter sure as shit didn't win it, Russia was expanding before Reagan.

We're not talking about Carter, so your whataboutism fails here. Reagan didn't do shit to win the Cold War. All Reagan did was run up the deficit and debt while inflating an S&L bubble that would eventually result in the largest bailout at the time. How did Reagan exactly win the Cold War? He ran from Lebanon. He sold weapons to Iran and Iraq. He invaded Grenada. He funded death squads in Central America. What specific actions did Reagan take that directly caused the collapse of the Soviet Union two years after he left office?

ust have been because they were scared of Carter.....
Or did Dukakis in the tank make them rethink their evil ways?

It wasn't because of anything Reagan did, because you can't articulate anything Reagan did. You say Reagan won the Cold War; I ask "how?" You don't have an answer. And that's where we are.

And all it took was $9.3 trillion in added debt.
How does that compare to Reagan's job creation and $1.6 trillion in added debt?

Put that $1.6T in today's dollars and how much was it he added to the debt?

Obama grew debt by 80%, Reagan grew debt by 200%.

And why does debt matter to you so much sometimes, but not all the time? You can't say. You just try to scare people with big debt numbers because you don't understand what government debt is, or when it has to be paid.

Of course not, because Clinton was such a responsible budget steward.

He was. He won the shutdown battle. He won tax increases. You all said that if Clinton raised taxes it would lead to the sky falling. You were wrong. So since you were wrong then, why would you be right now?

Besides cutting defense, what other spending did Clinton slash?

The only spending that was changed was how welfare spending was distributed. By changing it to block grants, Conservatives in red states could raid that block grant to plug the holes in their budgets that came form their tax cuts. So COnservatives reformed welfare to quite literally use welfare to pay for their trickle-down policies. If the welfare block grant gravy train ended for red states, and welfare spending was returned to the federal government, allllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll those "low tax" red states would have to raise their taxes to make up for the gap that comes from not being able to use welfare to pay for tax cuts.

So wouldn't that make your entire fiscal policy welfare-dependent? Why yes, it does. You welfare queen.

Oh....and his loss resulted in more spending or less spending?

More. Clinton's budgets every year were larger than the year prior. Not once was federal spending even below the previous year. So you say you Conservatives cut spending during Clinton? What spending?

Didn't Obama rollback that reform?

Nope. All Obama did was allow red state governors to impose their own work requirements for welfare. Which was what you all wanted, including Romney who was your 2012 nominee and who lobbied for those work requirement changes to preserve more state authority over who qualifies for welfare benefits.

So as usual, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, but are posturing anyway.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yup. Even considering the deep recession needed to kill Carter's double digit inflation.

So you then admit Carter had "huge growth" because his annualized GDP growth rate was only 0.2% less than Reagan's. So according to you, Carter also had "huge growth", and he was working with terrible Nixonian Fed policy. That is, if we're applying the arbitrary standard you set in place during this debate. What Carter faced was more of an obstacle than what Reagan faced. And yet, Carter still had nearly the same annualized GDP growth rate. But Carter didn't double the deficit or triple the debt. You guys did, though. Where's all your debt concern now? Nowhere. Because it's posturing.

Yeah, the Internet Bubble was cool.

Yeah, the S&L bubble was cool too. As was doubling the deficit and tripling the debt. While only producing 3 million more jobs than Obama did, who cut the deficit by 2/3 and grew the debt by 80%.

Big tax cuts work. Every time.

Nope. Wrong. Taxes were cut by 22% from 1964-1968, yet spending grew by 50%. Revenues grew by 36%, which just so happens to be the mid-point between revenue lost and spending increased. So what grew revenue 50%? Spending.

So you then admit Carter had "huge growth" because his annualized GDP growth rate was only 0.2% less than Reagan's.

It's true, Carter's GDP growth was so awesome that Reagan won 44 states. Yessirree, Carter was awesome!!!
Just think about how much higher Reagan's GDP growth would have been without that recession.

 

[The Derp]

It's true, Carter's GDP growth was so awesome that Reagan won 44 states.

Hold on, Toddster! You got tripped up on your own rhetoric. You said Reagan had "huge growth", yet Reagan's annualized Real GDP growth rate was only 0.2% more than Carter's. So by your own rhetoric, Carter had huge growth. Your words and your rhetoric, pal. Now you try walking them back.

Reagan won 44 states because he cut a deal with Iran; in exchange for selling them weapons they would free the hostages should he win the election. So I'd like to know why it was A-OK for you guys to talk with Iran in secret to broker an arms-for-hostages deal, yet it wasn't OK to talk with Iran in public to remove their capacity to build nukes? Actually, I already know why...you're a hypocrite and intellectual lightweight.

Just think about how much higher Reagan's GDP growth would have been without that recession.

The recession didn't start until 10 months into Reagan's term, right after he passed his tax cut. You know, the one you claim saved the economy when it actually harmed it by precipitating a 13-month recession.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

arter sure as shit didn't win it, Russia was expanding before Reagan.

We're not talking about Carter, so your whataboutism fails here. Reagan didn't do shit to win the Cold War. All Reagan did was run up the deficit and debt while inflating an S&L bubble that would eventually result in the largest bailout at the time. How did Reagan exactly win the Cold War? He ran from Lebanon. He sold weapons to Iran and Iraq. He invaded Grenada. He funded death squads in Central America. What specific actions did Reagan take that directly caused the collapse of the Soviet Union two years after he left office?

ust have been because they were scared of Carter.....
Or did Dukakis in the tank make them rethink their evil ways?

It wasn't because of anything Reagan did, because you can't articulate anything Reagan did. You say Reagan won the Cold War; I ask "how?" You don't have an answer. And that's where we are.

And all it took was $9.3 trillion in added debt.
How does that compare to Reagan's job creation and $1.6 trillion in added debt?

Put that $1.6T in today's dollars and how much was it he added to the debt?

Obama grew debt by 80%, Reagan grew debt by 200%.

And why does debt matter to you so much sometimes, but not all the time? You can't say. You just try to scare people with big debt numbers because you don't understand what government debt is, or when it has to be paid.

Of course not, because Clinton was such a responsible budget steward.

He was. He won the shutdown battle. He won tax increases. You all said that if Clinton raised taxes it would lead to the sky falling. You were wrong. So since you were wrong then, why would you be right now?

Besides cutting defense, what other spending did Clinton slash?

The only spending that was changed was how welfare spending was distributed. By changing it to block grants, Conservatives in red states could raid that block grant to plug the holes in their budgets that came form their tax cuts. So COnservatives reformed welfare to quite literally use welfare to pay for their trickle-down policies. If the welfare block grant gravy train ended for red states, and welfare spending was returned to the federal government, allllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll those "low tax" red states would have to raise their taxes to make up for the gap that comes from not being able to use welfare to pay for tax cuts.

So wouldn't that make your entire fiscal policy welfare-dependent? Why yes, it does. You welfare queen.

Oh....and his loss resulted in more spending or less spending?

More. Clinton's budgets every year were larger than the year prior. Not once was federal spending even below the previous year. So you say you Conservatives cut spending during Clinton? What spending?

Didn't Obama rollback that reform?

Nope. All Obama did was allow red state governors to impose their own work requirements for welfare. Which was what you all wanted, including Romney who was your 2012 nominee and who lobbied for those work requirement changes to preserve more state authority over who qualifies for welfare benefits.

So as usual, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, but are posturing anyway.

What specific actions did Reagan take that directly caused the collapse of the Soviet Union two years after he left office?

He bankrupted them. Their crappy economy couldn't keep up.
Star Wars was the final straw.

You say Reagan won the Cold War; I ask "how?"

He showed the Brezhnev Doctrine was as bankrupt as the Soviet economy.

More. Clinton's budgets every year were larger than the year prior.

Clinton won the shut down and spent more. So how does that make him the budget balancing budget hawk?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's true, Carter's GDP growth was so awesome that Reagan won 44 states.

Hold on, Toddster! You got tripped up on your own rhetoric. You said Reagan had "huge growth", yet Reagan's annualized Real GDP growth rate was only 0.2% more than Carter's. So by your own rhetoric, Carter had huge growth. Your words and your rhetoric, pal. Now you try walking them back.

Reagan won 44 states because he cut a deal with Iran; in exchange for selling them weapons they would free the hostages should he win the election. So I'd like to know why it was A-OK for you guys to talk with Iran in secret to broker an arms-for-hostages deal, yet it wasn't OK to talk with Iran in public to remove their capacity to build nukes? Actually, I already know why...you're a hypocrite and intellectual lightweight.

Just think about how much higher Reagan's GDP growth would have been without that recession.

The recession didn't start until 10 months into Reagan's term, right after he passed his tax cut. You know, the one you claim saved the economy when it actually harmed it by precipitating a 13-month recession.

You said Reagan had "huge growth",

It's true.

yet Reagan's annualized Real GDP growth rate was only 0.2% more than Carter's.

Carter was awesome!!
That's why he won 49 states in his re-election bid in 1980.

Reagan won 44 states because he cut a deal with Iran;

Carter was awesome! That's why Iran didn't capture our embassy and why Russia didn't invade Afghanistan.

The recession didn't start until 10 months into Reagan's term, right after he passed his tax cut.

I know, something had to be done to kill Carter's double digit inflation.

You know, the one you claim saved the economy when it actually harmed it by precipitating a 13-month recession

Yeah, massive tax cuts caused a recession. DERP!!

 

[Brain357]

It's true, Carter's GDP growth was so awesome that Reagan won 44 states.

Hold on, Toddster! You got tripped up on your own rhetoric. You said Reagan had "huge growth", yet Reagan's annualized Real GDP growth rate was only 0.2% more than Carter's. So by your own rhetoric, Carter had huge growth. Your words and your rhetoric, pal. Now you try walking them back.

Reagan won 44 states because he cut a deal with Iran; in exchange for selling them weapons they would free the hostages should he win the election. So I'd like to know why it was A-OK for you guys to talk with Iran in secret to broker an arms-for-hostages deal, yet it wasn't OK to talk with Iran in public to remove their capacity to build nukes? Actually, I already know why...you're a hypocrite and intellectual lightweight.

Just think about how much higher Reagan's GDP growth would have been without that recession.

The recession didn't start until 10 months into Reagan's term, right after he passed his tax cut. You know, the one you claim saved the economy when it actually harmed it by precipitating a 13-month recession.

You said Reagan had "huge growth",

It's true.

yet Reagan's annualized Real GDP growth rate was only 0.2% more than Carter's.

Carter was awesome!!
That's why he won 49 states in his re-election bid in 1980.

Reagan won 44 states because he cut a deal with Iran;

Carter was awesome! That's why Iran didn't capture our embassy and why Russia didn't invade Afghanistan.

The recession didn't start until 10 months into Reagan's term, right after he passed his tax cut.

I know, something had to be done to kill Carter's double digit inflation.

You know, the one you claim saved the economy when it actually harmed it by precipitating a 13-month recession

Yeah, massive tax cuts caused a recession. DERP!!

Yeah I still think we should be following Clinton policy. Balanced budget and better economic numbers. Now that would be great.