Nebraska stuns GOP establishment

[ShackledNation]

Double post.

 

[ShackledNation]

You mean actually taxing people at an appropriate rate?

Here's the real problem- When you idiot supply siders cut taxes and started borrowing, you made government more attractive.

You get all these goodies and no one has to pay for it.

If you really want to shrink government, raise taxes across the board. Then people might want to take care of their own grandmothers than letting government do it.

Yes, increasing the amount of money the government can use to spend and influence will decrease the size of government.

Ooookay, I realize you are a litle slow... but try this on.

Why has government grown at a faster rate since the Reagan tax cuts?

You really have to think hard about this one, I know, because you don't seem very bright.

The Reagan tax cuts were accompanied by an increase in government fees. Government revenue remained largely stable under Reagan (but his spending increased). Reagan also increased spending, hence the deficits. Cutting taxes without cutting spending will obviously not decrease the size of government, as I am making the point that a government that spends more money is larger and more influential than one that spends less.

If you get all these goodies from the government, and your tax bill for them is low, because instead of taxing people for them, we went off and borrowed money from China, what incentive would you possibly have for wanting less goodies?

If you have a brain, you will realize that debt must be paid off, and that future taxes will have to be raised to pay for the unpaid goodies plus interest. Most big spenders in Washington, however, are too shortsided to see this obvious incentive to stop offering goodies.

You're not paying for them. It's like they gave you a credit card with no limit, and you can pay it off with another credit card with no limit.

Absolutely no incentive at all to demand government live within its means.

Which is why the Federal budget has gone from 590 Billion in 1980 to 2,982 Billion in 2008.

Government Spending Details: Federal State Local for 1980 - Charts

Government Spending Details: Federal State Local for 2008 - Charts

In short, long before Obama ever got there, in less than 30 years, we increased federal spending by 600 %.

Debt increased from less than a trillion to nearly 10 trillion in that time.

Hmmmmm.... Now how could that be? Could it be that it's easier to run up a bill if it isn't clear who is paying for it? Hmmmmm...

Let you think about it for a while... but I'm sure your answer will be a bunch of curse words about the president making it worse and so on.

If government takes in more in taxes due to higher rates, it will have more to spend. There is no reason to believe that government will stop borrowing money if it raises taxes. In fact, if people are paying more in taxes, they will expect more in services. How will government pay for these services? Probably borrowing even more money from China.

Even if government due to the raised tax revenue borrows less, it will still not be spending any less money unless for some reason it cuts spending. But then it should be obvious to anyone that what reduced the size of government was the reduction in spending, not the tax increase, for such a reduction could have occurred just as easily without raising taxes.

Giving government more revenue will not shrink it. It is not me who has a problem thinking critically.

 

[JoeB131]

[
The Reagan tax cuts were accompanied by an increase in government fees. Government revenue remained largely stable under Reagan (but his spending increased). Reagan also increased spending, hence the deficits. Cutting taxes without cutting spending will obviously not decrease the size of government, as I am making the point that a government that spends more money is larger and more influential than one that spends less.

Um, no Reagan didn't increase taxes until about 1986 or so through so-called tax reform (that mostly consisted of cutting out middle class loopholes so the rich could keep the huge tax cuts they got between 1981 and 1983.) This was after he promised no Tax increases when Mondale was kind of honest and admitted taxes would have to go up. Also, Reagan increased spending. Defense spending went from 167 Billion in 1980 to 330 Billion by 1988. So, no, cutting taxes did not "Starve the beast". The beast got hungrier.

If you have a brain, you will realize that debt must be paid off, and that future taxes will have to be raised to pay for the unpaid goodies plus interest. Most big spenders in Washington, however, are too shortsided to see this obvious incentive to stop offering goodies.

which again, if we had a requirement that every dollar in spending had to be countered with a dollar in taxes, we'd get less spending. Obviously borrowing is the path of least resistance, until no one will loan you anything anymore.

If government takes in more in taxes due to higher rates, it will have more to spend. There is no reason to believe that government will stop borrowing money if it raises taxes. In fact, if people are paying more in taxes, they will expect more in services. How will government pay for these services? Probably borrowing even more money from China.

Even if government due to the raised tax revenue borrows less, it will still not be spending any less money unless for some reason it cuts spending. But then it should be obvious to anyone that what reduced the size of government was the reduction in spending, not the tax increase, for such a reduction could have occurred just as easily without raising taxes.

Giving government more revenue will not shrink it. It is not me who has a problem thinking critically.

Well, no, if you are a complete retard who is shown that 30 years of supply side spending doesn't work, and you still insist that we are really going to control debt by not taxing people, then I think you aren't being critical at all.

I gave you the numbers, man. You just choose to ignore them because they don't fit into your worldview.

 

[Toro]

Um, no Reagan didn't increase taxes until about 1986 or so through so-called tax reform (that mostly consisted of cutting out middle class loopholes so the rich could keep the huge tax cuts they got between 1981 and 1983.) This was after he promised no Tax increases when Mondale was kind of honest and admitted taxes would have to go up. Also, Reagan increased spending. Defense spending went from 167 Billion in 1980 to 330 Billion by 1988. So, no, cutting taxes did not "Starve the beast". The beast got hungrier.

Reagan raised taxes in 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988. His big tax increases came in the first three years. The tax increases thereafter were small. Net, Reagan cut taxes by $140 billion.

Reagan's Tax Increases | Stan Collender's Capital Gains and Games

 

[JoeB131]

You got your figures, I have mine.

Reagan cut taxes on teh wealthy and raised them on the middle class. That was the net effect, anyway.

 

[midcan5]

Americans have short memories?

"Percentage of the current U.S. debt that was accumulated during Republican presidential terms: 71
Portion of debt-ceiling elevations since 1960 that have been signed into law by Republican presidents : 2/3
Percentage of profits American corporations paid in taxes in 1961 : 40.6 Today: 10.5
Portion of the increase in U.S. corporate profit margins since 2001 that come from depressed wages: 3/4
Percentage of Americans who say they did not have money to buy food at all times last year: 18.2
Percentage change in the median household wealth of white families since 2005 : -16 Of Hispanic families: -66 " Source: October 2011, page 15 (Harper's Magazine Index)


Politics - James Fallows - Another Chart That Should Accompany All Debt-Ceiling Discussions - The Atlantic

U.S. Federal Deficits, Presidents, and Congress

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You mean actually taxing people at an appropriate rate?

Here's the real problem- When you idiot supply siders cut taxes and started borrowing, you made government more attractive.

You get all these goodies and no one has to pay for it.

If you really want to shrink government, raise taxes across the board. Then people might want to take care of their own grandmothers than letting government do it.

Yes, increasing the amount of money the government can use to spend and influence will decrease the size of government.

Ooookay, I realize you are a litle slow... but try this on.

Why has government grown at a faster rate since the Reagan tax cuts?

You really have to think hard about this one, I know, because you don't seem very bright.

If you get all these goodies from the government, and your tax bill for them is low, because instead of taxing people for them, we went off and borrowed money from China, what incentive would you possibly have for wanting less goodies?

You're not paying for them. It's like they gave you a credit card with no limit, and you can pay it off with another credit card with no limit.

Absolutely no incentive at all to demand government live within its means.

Which is why the Federal budget has gone from 590 Billion in 1980 to 2,982 Billion in 2008.

Government Spending Details: Federal State Local for 1980 - Charts

Government Spending Details: Federal State Local for 2008 - Charts

In short, long before Obama ever got there, in less than 30 years, we increased federal spending by 600 %.

Debt increased from less than a trillion to nearly 10 trillion in that time.

Hmmmmm.... Now how could that be? Could it be that it's easier to run up a bill if it isn't clear who is paying for it? Hmmmmm...

Let you think about it for a while... but I'm sure your answer will be a bunch of curse words about the president making it worse and so on.

Look up "Budget Impoundment Act of 1974"

The Democrats neutered the Presidency and took the ability to control spending from the Executive Branch

 

[Sallow]

Obama is currently implementing 50billion in yearly cuts for the military. That’s not the future that’s now

$50 billion in "cuts" (actually just a slightly reduced rate of increased spending) while spending TRILLIONS more elsewhere. Wonderful logic you've got there. That's like a father telling his family, "Look, I cut our food budget by 1% to be fiscally responsible...just don't ask me about spending more than ever on hookers and coke!"

Funny..that even those cuts are sparking a new battle in Congress. Republicans want them halted..and they want to make the Bush tax cuts, permanent.

So much for "fiscal responsibility".

I'm with Jake on this one..put Simpson Bowles on the table.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Jake is a card carrying Communist. He thinks he's infiltrated the Republican Party. He taps out Morse code to his handler every night telling them how hes subverting the will of USMB Conservatives because we find him "reasonable" and "thought provoking"

Umm, wow.

Just wow.

YOu know, I get into with Jake a lot, but I think he really is a moderate Republican who doesn't like the way the crazies have hijacked the GOP, which they have.

I think he's deluded himself into thinking Mitt Romney is going to take the party back from the nutters when there's really nothing to support that.

As a "Republican", Jake is a drag queen with whiskers and hairy legs and just as convincing

No sale.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Jake is a card carrying Communist. He thinks he's infiltrated the Republican Party. He taps out Morse code to his handler every night telling them how hes subverting the will of USMB Conservatives because we find him "reasonable" and "thought provoking"

Umm, wow.

Just wow.

YOu know, I get into with Jake a lot, but I think he really is a moderate Republican who doesn't like the way the crazies have hijacked the GOP, which they have.

I think he's deluded himself into thinking Mitt Romney is going to take the party back from the nutters when there's really nothing to support that.

The fact that YOU either DO "believe" an obvious fraud like Fakey or just claim to believe that punk ass bitch tells a huge story about you, JoeB.

It's simple. When all of his expressed political views are warmed-over versions of the modern American liberal political position on whatever the topics might be, there comes a point where it is ridiculous to accept his obviously dishonest claims anymore that he is a Republican. He's not. He's a liberal Democrat.

He is a fraud. A poseur. There is no question about it. That makes you either a liar or a dolt.

or both

 

[Liability]

Obama is currently implementing 50billion in yearly cuts for the military. That’s not the future that’s now

$50 billion in "cuts" (actually just a slightly reduced rate of increased spending) while spending TRILLIONS more elsewhere. Wonderful logic you've got there. That's like a father telling his family, "Look, I cut our food budget by 1% to be fiscally responsible...just don't ask me about spending more than ever on hookers and coke!"

Funny..that even those cuts are sparking a new battle in Congress. Republicans want them halted..and they want to make the Bush tax cuts, permanent.

So much for "fiscal responsibility".

I'm with Jake on this one..put Simpson Bowles on the table.

Because, once more with feeling, the deal is clear.

STOP spending. Stop gouging taxpayers. It is fiscally IRRESPONSIBLE to do anything other than get taxes as low as possible.

So as for proffered lectures on fiscal responsibility from liberals, try to understand, the only rational response is "no thanks."

As for being with Jake, that comes as no surprise. All you libs tend to stick together.

 

[JoeB131]

Because, once more with feeling, the deal is clear.

STOP spending. Stop gouging taxpayers. It is fiscally IRRESPONSIBLE to do anything other than get taxes as low as possible.

So as for proffered lectures on fiscal responsibility from liberals, try to understand, the only rational response is "no thanks."

As for being with Jake, that comes as no surprise. All you libs tend to stick together.

Again, we have one of the lowest tax rates in the industrialized world.

And until your side actually puts real cuts on teh table with Defense and Social Security, I just can't take you seriously.

 

[Truthmatters]

Deb Fischer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


During the primary campaign, Fischer was criticized by environmentalists and others because her family's ranch near Valentine grazes cattle on federal land, leasing it for about $110,000 per year less than the market rate on private land. Opponents of federal grazing leases argue that she should relinquish her family's permit if she wants to remain "morally consistent" with her message of less government. Fischer argues that the poor quality of federal lands, plus the restrictions that come with federal leases, make it inappropriate to compare them to private leases.[13



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH


shes not as honest as she seems

 

[Darkwind]

TEA Party is dead.

Yes. They keep telling us that.



Nobody seems to have told the Tea Partiers, though.

I keep checking for the memo, but it must have been sent to the wrong address.

 

[Liability]

Because, once more with feeling, the deal is clear.

STOP spending. Stop gouging taxpayers. It is fiscally IRRESPONSIBLE to do anything other than get taxes as low as possible.

So as for proffered lectures on fiscal responsibility from liberals, try to understand, the only rational response is "no thanks."

As for being with Jake, that comes as no surprise. All you libs tend to stick together.

Again, we have one of the lowest tax rates in the industrialized world.

And until your side actually puts real cuts on teh table with Defense and Social Security, I just can't take you seriously.

Nobody gives a crap who YOU take seriously, JoeBitch.

SPENDING cuts and tax cuts NOW.

President Obama voted OUT in November.

 

[ShackledNation]

[
The Reagan tax cuts were accompanied by an increase in government fees. Government revenue remained largely stable under Reagan (but his spending increased). Reagan also increased spending, hence the deficits. Cutting taxes without cutting spending will obviously not decrease the size of government, as I am making the point that a government that spends more money is larger and more influential than one that spends less.

Um, no Reagan didn't increase taxes until about 1986 or so through so-called tax reform (that mostly consisted of cutting out middle class loopholes so the rich could keep the huge tax cuts they got between 1981 and 1983.) This was after he promised no Tax increases when Mondale was kind of honest and admitted taxes would have to go up. Also, Reagan increased spending. Defense spending went from 167 Billion in 1980 to 330 Billion by 1988. So, no, cutting taxes did not "Starve the beast". The beast got hungrier.

The Reagan tax cuts, as I said before, were accompanied by tax increases elsewhere and the raising of fees and closing of loopholes as I said before. During his presidency, government federal government revenue did not really decrease much at all. The revenue is what matters, not the tax rate. As I said before, Reagan increased spending. The spending is what fueled that beast, not these imaginary "massive tax cuts" that propagate the Reagan Myth.

If you have a brain, you will realize that debt must be paid off, and that future taxes will have to be raised to pay for the unpaid goodies plus interest. Most big spenders in Washington, however, are too shortsided to see this obvious incentive to stop offering goodies.

which again, if we had a requirement that every dollar in spending had to be countered with a dollar in taxes, we'd get less spending. Obviously borrowing is the path of least resistance, until no one will loan you anything anymore.

If you had such a requirement, it would not be necesssary to raise taxes to get less spending. In that case, the requirement would be what results in smaller government, not a raise in taxes. If you want to argue that ending government borrowing and Federal Reserve inflation would result in smaller government, I would agree. But that is entirely different than saying an increase in taxes will.

If government takes in more in taxes due to higher rates, it will have more to spend. There is no reason to believe that government will stop borrowing money if it raises taxes. In fact, if people are paying more in taxes, they will expect more in services. How will government pay for these services? Probably borrowing even more money from China.

Even if government due to the raised tax revenue borrows less, it will still not be spending any less money unless for some reason it cuts spending. But then it should be obvious to anyone that what reduced the size of government was the reduction in spending, not the tax increase, for such a reduction could have occurred just as easily without raising taxes.

Giving government more revenue will not shrink it. It is not me who has a problem thinking critically.

Well, no, if you are a complete retard who is shown that 30 years of supply side spending doesn't work, and you still insist that we are really going to control debt by not taxing people, then I think you aren't being critical at all.

I gave you the numbers, man. You just choose to ignore them because they don't fit into your worldview.

I am not a supply side economist, so your reference is irrelevant. And the original argument was about the size of government, not the size of debt.

If you increase taxes, all else remaining the same, government will not decrease in size. You seem to be assuming that an increase in taxes will automatically result in less borrowing. But this is simply not true, as I already explained. If you aren't going to respond to my arguments, then I will not waste my time.

 

[JoeB131]

I am not a supply side economist, so your reference is irrelevant. And the original argument was about the size of government, not the size of debt.

If you increase taxes, all else remaining the same, government will not decrease in size. You seem to be assuming that an increase in taxes will automatically result in less borrowing. But this is simply not true, as I already explained. If you aren't going to respond to my arguments, then I will not waste my time.

You're arguments are idiotic...

In fact, the closest we ever got to reducing the size of government was under Clinton, ironically enough. He raised taxes and then there WAS a push to reduce government. Defense spending went down and welfare spending flattened out.

 

[Liability]

I am not a supply side economist, so your reference is irrelevant. And the original argument was about the size of government, not the size of debt.

If you increase taxes, all else remaining the same, government will not decrease in size. You seem to be assuming that an increase in taxes will automatically result in less borrowing. But this is simply not true, as I already explained. If you aren't going to respond to my arguments, then I will not waste my time.

You're arguments are idiotic...

In fact, the closest we ever got to reducing the size of government was under Clinton, ironically enough. He raised taxes and then there WAS a push to reduce government. Defense spending went down and welfare spending flattened out.

Leave it to a dopey bitch like JoeBitch to think a shrinking military equates with a smaller government.

And he is SUCH a stupid bitch.

 

[JoeB131]

Leave it to a dopey bitch like JoeBitch to think a shrinking military equates with a smaller government.

And he is SUCH a stupid bitch.

And what was your MOS, "bitch"... Somehow, I suspect the closest you ever got to military service was "Call of Duty III".

Anyway, yeah, shrinking the size of a bloated, unnecessary military buying weapons we don't need to fight a war that will never happen.

Do we really need 12 aircraft carriers when the rest of the world couldn't put together than many on a bet?

The ironic thing, we'd be a lot better off spending that money on roads and schools...

 

[Liability]

Leave it to a dopey bitch like JoeBitch to think a shrinking military equates with a smaller government.

And he is SUCH a stupid bitch.

And what was your MOS, "bitch"... Somehow, I suspect the closest you ever got to military service was "Call of Duty III".

Anyway, yeah, shrinking the size of a bloated, unnecessary military buying weapons we don't need to fight a war that will never happen.

Do we really need 12 aircraft carriers when the rest of the world couldn't put together than many on a bet?

The ironic thing, we'd be a lot better off spending that money on roads and schools...

My service or lack of service is -- of course -- entirely irrelvant you dipshit.

What IS relevant, stupid, is the shit you said and the rejoinder.

Try to smarten up a little and pay attention.

The size of "the government," you fucking idiot is NOT related to the size of the military.

You are a tool.

And, oh. As I have noted many times before, I did not serve. That does not disqualify me from pointing out what a douche you are.