Wry Catcher
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #1
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.
Most importantly, they came from liberals who killed all 30 Balanced Budget Amendments that Republicans have introduced since Jefferson's first.
Newt's passed the House and fell one vote short in the Senate
Yes, the big kahuna here is Mr. Bushs 2001 reduction in income-tax rates, which alone accounts for about $1.2 trillion in revenue foregone over the decade.
The general problem is obvious: Uncle Sam has been spending more money than he takes in.
From the link:
Yes, the big kahuna here is Mr. Bush’s 2001 reduction in income-tax rates, which alone accounts for about $1.2 trillion in revenue foregone over the decade.
Complete and utter bullshit. No one, I mean NO ONE can say with certainty what happens to tax revenues following a change in tax rates. If we had had higher tax rates (no Bush tax cuts), we might of realized higher revenues but on the other hand, higher rates may have stiffed investments, resulting in less revenue. Point is, no one knows for sure.
You can question the Laffer curve, but you cannot state with certainty the opposite is true. Neither can Peter Grier of the Christian Science Monitor.
He does get it right here:
The general problem is obvious: Uncle Sam has been spending more money than he takes in.
The solution is also obvious. Live within our means.
From the link:
Yes, the big kahuna here is Mr. Bushs 2001 reduction in income-tax rates, which alone accounts for about $1.2 trillion in revenue foregone over the decade.
Complete and utter bullshit. No one, I mean NO ONE can say with certainty what happens to tax revenues following a change in tax rates. If we had had higher tax rates (no Bush tax cuts), we might of realized higher revenues but on the other hand, higher rates may have stiffed investments, resulting in less revenue. Point is, no one knows for sure.
You can question the Laffer curve, but you cannot state with certainty the opposite is true. Neither can Peter Grier of the Christian Science Monitor.
He does get it right here:
The general problem is obvious: Uncle Sam has been spending more money than he takes in.
The solution is also obvious. Live within our means.
Sometimes, to survive, a person, family or a nation cannot live within their means. That's obvious to me, that others do not is amazing.
Most importantly, they came from liberals who killed all 30 Balanced Budget Amendments that Republicans have introduced since Jefferson's first.
Newt's passed the House and fell one vote short in the Senate
From the link:
Complete and utter bullshit. No one, I mean NO ONE can say with certainty what happens to tax revenues following a change in tax rates. If we had had higher tax rates (no Bush tax cuts), we might of realized higher revenues but on the other hand, higher rates may have stiffed investments, resulting in less revenue. Point is, no one knows for sure.
You can question the Laffer curve, but you cannot state with certainty the opposite is true. Neither can Peter Grier of the Christian Science Monitor.
He does get it right here:
The solution is also obvious. Live within our means.
Sometimes, to survive, a person, family or a nation cannot live within their means. That's obvious to me, that others do not is amazing.
Feel free to demonstrate how America would not survive on the mere $2.2 trillion of tax revenue we generate each year.
From the link:
Yes, the big kahuna here is Mr. Bushs 2001 reduction in income-tax rates, which alone accounts for about $1.2 trillion in revenue foregone over the decade.
Complete and utter bullshit. No one, I mean NO ONE can say with certainty what happens to tax revenues following a change in tax rates. If we had had higher tax rates (no Bush tax cuts), we might of realized higher revenues but on the other hand, higher rates may have stiffed investments, resulting in less revenue. Point is, no one knows for sure.
You can question the Laffer curve, but you cannot state with certainty the opposite is true. Neither can Peter Grier of the Christian Science Monitor.
He does get it right here:
The general problem is obvious: Uncle Sam has been spending more money than he takes in.
The solution is also obvious. Live within our means.
Sometimes, to survive, a person, family or a nation cannot live within their means. That's obvious to me, that others do not is amazing.
Why did the republicans abandon Paygo?
Most importantly, they came from liberals who killed all 30 Balanced Budget Amendments that Republicans have introduced since Jefferson's first.
Newt's passed the House and fell one vote short in the Senate
Thank goodness a BBA is idiocy.
Why did the republicans abandon Paygo?
Why did the republicans abandon Paygo?
When did the Democrats ever abide by it?
Today, would Jefferson be a Republican or a Democrat?