CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 148,628
- 71,932
- 2,330
Anyone recall what the GOP 2009 stimulus plan was?
I recall you guys kept telling us "we won!"
You Schruted it.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Anyone recall what the GOP 2009 stimulus plan was?
Anyone recall what the GOP 2009 stimulus plan was?
Anyone recall what the GOP 2009 stimulus plan was?
Pretty much the same stimulus plan that has always proved effective:
1. lower taxes
2. less regulation
3. smaller government.
Anyone recall what the GOP 2009 stimulus plan was?
Pretty much the same stimulus plan that has always proved effective:
1. lower taxes
2. less regulation
3. smaller government.
When did the Bush tax cuts stop 'working'? And why?
Pretty much the same stimulus plan that has always proved effective:
1. lower taxes
2. less regulation
3. smaller government.
When did the Bush tax cuts stop 'working'? And why?
I understand that you are fascinated by small shiny objects, and find it difficult to juggle more than one thought in your head at a time...which is exactly what made you eligible to be Liberal...but an understanding of this subject may be beyond you:
All three.
Not one...three. 1-2-3.
The reponse to the problem is based on the constellation of said items:
1. lower taxes
2. less regulation
3. smaller government
ALL three.
Of course, those who have been alert during recent history realize that once this paradigm has been put in place, and the crisis is alleviated, your side will take credit for the victory...
...such is life.
When did the Bush tax cuts stop 'working'? And why?
I understand that you are fascinated by small shiny objects, and find it difficult to juggle more than one thought in your head at a time...which is exactly what made you eligible to be Liberal...but an understanding of this subject may be beyond you:
All three.
Not one...three. 1-2-3.
The reponse to the problem is based on the constellation of said items:
1. lower taxes
2. less regulation
3. smaller government
ALL three.
Of course, those who have been alert during recent history realize that once this paradigm has been put in place, and the crisis is alleviated, your side will take credit for the victory...
...such is life.
No president in your lifetime has done ALL three.
The question was, when did the Bush tax cuts stop working?
I'll elaborate.
If taxes need to be lower, when did the Bush tax cuts stop working?
When did the Bush tax cuts stop 'working'? And why?
I understand that you are fascinated by small shiny objects, and find it difficult to juggle more than one thought in your head at a time...which is exactly what made you eligible to be Liberal...but an understanding of this subject may be beyond you:
All three.
Not one...three. 1-2-3.
The reponse to the problem is based on the constellation of said items:
1. lower taxes
2. less regulation
3. smaller government
ALL three.
Of course, those who have been alert during recent history realize that once this paradigm has been put in place, and the crisis is alleviated, your side will take credit for the victory...
...such is life.
No president in your lifetime has done ALL three.
The question was, when did the Bush tax cuts stop working?
I'll elaborate.
If taxes need to be lower, when did the Bush tax cuts stop working?
While I may not have been eligible to vote for him, President Reagan did.
First when the dimwits won congress in 2006, then came obamaturd and spend became his montra.Anyone recall what the GOP 2009 stimulus plan was?
Pretty much the same stimulus plan that has always proved effective:
1. lower taxes
2. less regulation
3. smaller government.
When did the Bush tax cuts stop 'working'? And why?
While I may not have been eligible to vote for him, President Reagan did.
What was "smaller" about government in 1988, relative to 1980?
As far as I know, Reagan greatly expanded the government during his two terms. By 90% by some estimate.
I will say it again...Reagan was a lot better than what we have in office now.While I may not have been eligible to vote for him, President Reagan did.
What was "smaller" about government in 1988, relative to 1980?
As far as I know, Reagan greatly expanded the government during his two terms. By 90% by some estimates.
When Reagan came into office in 1981, he forced through Congress not only his famed, historic tax cuts, but also a package of budget cuts. That package was close to 5%, (a $31 billion cut) of the Federal budget at the time, which would be the equivalent of roughly $200 billion today.
In nominal terms, non-defense discretionary spending actually declined by 7.1% from 1981 to 1982. But the roaring inflation at the time actually masks the true magnitude of the Reagan spending cut achievement. In constant dollars, non-defense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983.
Moreover, in constant dollars, this non-defense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan's two terms! By 1988, this spending was still down 14.4% from its 1981 level in constant dollars. Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which, remember, won the Cold War without firing a shot, total Federal spending as a percent of GDP declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989. That's a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%. When the Republicans Cut Spending | Economy | American Solutions
Allow me to provide the leftist rebuttal.
Nuh-UH!!
Thank you.
I will say it again...Reagan was a lot better than what we have in office now.While I may not have been eligible to vote for him, President Reagan did.
What was "smaller" about government in 1988, relative to 1980?
As far as I know, Reagan greatly expanded the government during his two terms. By 90% by some estimates.
No, because he was smarter, more experienced, and not a socialist. ALSO HAD A SPINE!I will say it again...Reagan was a lot better than what we have in office now.What was "smaller" about government in 1988, relative to 1980?
As far as I know, Reagan greatly expanded the government during his two terms. By 90% by some estimates.
You mean because he was a cowboy movie actor?
When Reagan came into office in 1981, he forced through Congress not only his famed, historic tax cuts, but also a package of budget cuts. That package was close to 5%, (a $31 billion cut) of the Federal budget at the time, which would be the equivalent of roughly $200 billion today.
In nominal terms, non-defense discretionary spending actually declined by 7.1% from 1981 to 1982. But the roaring inflation at the time actually masks the true magnitude of the Reagan spending cut achievement. In constant dollars, non-defense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983.
Moreover, in constant dollars, this non-defense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan's two terms! By 1988, this spending was still down 14.4% from its 1981 level in constant dollars. Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which, remember, won the Cold War without firing a shot, total Federal spending as a percent of GDP declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989. That's a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%. When the Republicans Cut Spending | Economy | American Solutions
Woah, woah, back up.
Why would you not include defense spending?
And why are you using GDP to make the comparison?
GDP grew, true.. so did government.
And, let me ask you this:
If government spending supposedly went down, and revenue supposedly went up...
Then how did Reagan build up 3 Trillion dollars in debt?
I will say it again...Reagan was a lot better than what we have in office now.What was "smaller" about government in 1988, relative to 1980?
As far as I know, Reagan greatly expanded the government during his two terms. By 90% by some estimates.
You mean because he was a cowboy movie actor?
1. What you and the other Lefties fail to give proper respect and honor to is that President Reagan saved the United States, and the world, from communism. No price can be put on this feat.
And he did it without going to war.
2. Here, the answer to your question, from the NYTimes:
Reagans tax cutting vs. the realities of politics:
No democratic mandate could have been clearer than President Reagan's to cut Government spending. Yet the very same people who wanted this also wanted their own goodies preserved. On any particular issue it is the pro-goody faction that is motivated and organized. No one in America wants a subsidy program for peanut farmers, for example, except for a few peanut farmers. But non-peanut farmers don't care that much about this one little program. By skillfully trading their votes for things non-peanut farmers do care about, the Congressmen for the peanut farmers were able to save their program.
There are dozens of stories like this one. The result is that Mr. Stockman was unable to cut the goodies of anyone except those least able to organize and protect themselves: the very poor. After five years of unrelenting ideological assault, non-defense spending is just nine percent lower than it would have been if all the pre-1981 programs had remained untouched. IN THE LAND OF THE MAGIC ASTERISK - NYTimes.com
3. The Democratic Congress offered this deal: For every dollar you raise taxes, well cut three dollars in spending. On that basis he signed the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. How did that work out? From Ronald Reagans WSJ op-ed: Despite the assurances, promises, pledges and commitments you
are given, the spending cuts have a way of being forgotten or quietly lobbied out of future budgets. But the tax increases are as certain to come
as, well, death and taxes.In 1982, Congress wanted to raise taxes. It promised it would cut federal
spending by $3 for every $1 in new taxes. Being a new kid in town, I agreed
to this. Unfortunately, although the new taxes went into effect, Congress never cut spending by even a penny. (Reagan 1993) http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_12_01_01_bartlett.pdf
4. I am glad to see, Leftie, that spending and deficits are a consideration for you!
Bravo! You are on the right track...and on course to have your standing in the 'Left-wing' suspended!
The Left lives by one word: "MORE!"
You might be surprised to know that President Reagan never ran a deficit higher than 6%...which is about half of the deficit run by the current administration.
Go get 'em, Leftie!
Allow me to provide the leftist rebuttal.
Nuh-UH!!
Thank you.
Will hit it on the head, 100 million checks sent out, and corporations are not hiring American workers who are on food stamps. The Party of NO is still saying NO.....
1. What you and the other Lefties fail to give proper respect and honor to is that President Reagan saved the United States, and the world, from communism. No price can be put on this feat.
And he did it without going to war.
So... Ronald Reagan single-handedly defeated the Russians without any help at all from the work of his predecessors or anyone else in government at the time (like Joe Wilson). That's pretty impressive. So, by that token, obviously Obama deserves all the credit for killing Bin Laden, right?
2. Here, the answer to your question, from the NYTimes:
Reagans tax cutting vs. the realities of politics:
No democratic mandate could have been clearer than President Reagan's to cut Government spending. Yet the very same people who wanted this also wanted their own goodies preserved. On any particular issue it is the pro-goody faction that is motivated and organized. No one in America wants a subsidy program for peanut farmers, for example, except for a few peanut farmers. But non-peanut farmers don't care that much about this one little program. By skillfully trading their votes for things non-peanut farmers do care about, the Congressmen for the peanut farmers were able to save their program.
There are dozens of stories like this one. The result is that Mr. Stockman was unable to cut the goodies of anyone except those least able to organize and protect themselves: the very poor. After five years of unrelenting ideological assault, non-defense spending is just nine percent lower than it would have been if all the pre-1981 programs had remained untouched. IN THE LAND OF THE MAGIC ASTERISK - NYTimes.com
3. The Democratic Congress offered this deal: For every dollar you raise taxes, well cut three dollars in spending. On that basis he signed the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. How did that work out? From Ronald Reagans WSJ op-ed: Despite the assurances, promises, pledges and commitments you
are given, the spending cuts have a way of being forgotten or quietly lobbied out of future budgets. But the tax increases are as certain to come
as, well, death and taxes.In 1982, Congress wanted to raise taxes. It promised it would cut federal
spending by $3 for every $1 in new taxes. Being a new kid in town, I agreed
to this. Unfortunately, although the new taxes went into effect, Congress never cut spending by even a penny. (Reagan 1993) http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_12_01_01_bartlett.pdf
So, just so we're clear, what you're saying is... as I said... Reagan didn't cut spending.
Right?
4. I am glad to see, Leftie, that spending and deficits are a consideration for you!
Bravo! You are on the right track...and on course to have your standing in the 'Left-wing' suspended!
The Left lives by one word: "MORE!"
You might be surprised to know that President Reagan never ran a deficit higher than 6%...which is about half of the deficit run by the current administration.
Go get 'em, Leftie!
Spending and deficits have always been a major consideration for me.
I feel we need to raise the eligibility age by 3 years right now for all retirement-related benefits, raise income and capital gains tax rates back to Clinton era levels, and cut spending, especially (but certainly not limited to) military spending, drastically.
Though I think as far as capital gains taxes go, I feel there should be exceptions made on investment income that has verifiable proof of having created American jobs.