Elizabeth Warren Fights Back Against the "Magical Accounting" of Trickle-Down Economics

[The Rabbi]

Dud2.3 can't compose a coherent point or post. That must be W's fault.

Got it, you are brain dead

Wrong, but even if it were true, it's smething a moron like you couldn't ascertain anyway.

give up shitwit.

You lack the capacity to post intelligently.

You clearly lack the ability to post anything of merit.

I have him on Ignore. Some people just arent worth screwing with.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No matter how you spin it government employees drain more from the economy than they contribute.

It doesn't matter if they pay taxes on their income, it doesn't matter that they spend it.

ALL the money first comes from the private sector

Anyone who hates government would believe that. We don't need no stinking government. They are a drain on our economy. We are better off without any government at all
Those who understand the function of government in society appreciate what it does and the role government employees play. Teachers, policemen, doctors, accountants, lawyers, scientists, engineers........all play a role in running our government

For one I never said any of that. So you can cut that shit out right now.

You can't accept the fact that government employees do not ADD to the bottom line they take from it. Government is a necessary evil and therefore should be kept as small as possible so as to relieve the burden of the people. It should not be expanded at every turn as you think.

There is no multiplier for government spending.

That thinking is voodoo economics if I ever saw it. If it were true then why not take 100% of everyone's money and have the magic government spending multiplier make it worth 3 times as much?

Again that is where you are wrong .......government is a necessary function and is essential to the operation of our society. Those employees who allow our government to function are not a drain on our society but an essential part of it.

As I said government is a necessary evil. It is necessary but it should be tightly controlled and only big enough to perform its enumerated functions at a bare minimum of cost so as not to burden the people.

And I said government employees do not add to the bottom line they reduce it.

How?

Really?

You can't figure out that taking X dollars from the private sector and then paying government workers less than X dollars results in a lower bottom line?

More money is taken from the private sector than is put back by government employees

 

[Skull Pilot]

The fact that tax receipts as a percentage of GDP fell following the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 shows a decrease in tax burden as share of GDP.

• Federal income tax revenues fell from 9.1% GDP in 1981 to a trough of 7.5% GDP in 1984, then rose to 8.0% GDP in 1989

Federal revenues were $599.3 billion in fiscal year 1981 and were $991.1 billion in fiscal year 1989. That’s an increase of just 65 percent. But of course a lot of that represented inflation. If 1981 revenues had only risen by the rate of inflation, they would have been $798 billion by 1989. Thus the real revenue increase was just 24 percent. However, the population also grew. Looking at real revenues per capita, we see that they rose from $3,470 in 1981 to $4,006 in 1989, an increase of just 15 percent. Finally, it is important to remember that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times, increasing revenues by $133 billion per year as of 1988 – about a third of the nominal revenue increase during Reagan’s presidency.

The fact is that the only metric that really matters is revenues as a share of the gross domestic product. By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989. This suggests that revenues were $66 billion lower in 1989 as a result of Reagan’s policies.


This is not surprising given that no one in the Reagan administration ever claimed that his 1981 tax cut would pay for itself or that it did. Reagan economists Bill Niskanen and Martin Anderson have written extensively on this oft-repeated myth. Conservative economist Lawrence Lindsey made a thorough effort to calculate the feedback effect in his 1990 book, The Growth Experiment. He concluded that the behavioral and macroeconomic effects of the 1981 tax cut, resulting from both supply-side and demand-side effects, recouped about a third of the static revenue loss.
No Gov. Pawlenty Tax Cuts Don t Pay for Themselves Stan Collender s Capital Gains and Games

Percentages can be deceiving.

Talk total dollars instead.

You do realize that a smaller percentage of a larger number can indeed be more than a higher percentage of a lower number don't you?

BZZZZ Wrong. Why do you think ECONOMISTS don't look at nominal dollars, dollars not adjusted for inflation? Add that to the growing labor force, THAT'S why they measure it via GDP, like ALL Gov't do.

NO SERIOUS ECONOMIST THINKS YOU CUT TAXES AT THE RATES WE'VE HAD FOR 34+ YEARS AND GET MORE REVENUES. None. Yes you can point to right wingers who lie for a living. But no serious economist thinks either Regan's tax cuts for the rich (50% first six years, that drove the deficit so badly he had to increase revenues 11 after that) NOR Dubya's 2 tax cuts (1 during war), came close to paying for themselves, much less brought in more revenues!!!!

Tax cuts do not have to be paid for as they do not cost the taxpayer anything.

UNLESS you cut spending, they sure as fukkk should be offset!!!!!

Of course 33 years of Reaganomics/Bushanomics where 90%+ of the debt can be traced back to their POLICIES, doesn't matter right?

Tax cuts do not cost anything there is no unless, no buts.

Government spending is what costs money. Hence government should be tightly controlled and only big enough to perform it's specifically enumerated functions so as to be as little of a burden on the people as possible.

 

[rightwinger]

Look who thanked you for your ^^^ post. You must be so proud to be in the same league as CrusaderFrank. LOL

I MUCH prefer to keep the company of an intelligent person like CF than to be at all concerned with the opinions of a dopey troll lolberal pantload like you, Wry.

I absolutely do value the opinions of CF. Unlike you, he can support his views with logic and facts.

Logic and facts? lol

In right wing world where tax cuts bring in more Gov't revenues, ALWAYS, while they stimulate the 'job creators' to create 'jobs, jobs, jobs' and Reagan was a mythical hero who didn't lie to US about Iran/Contra or cut and run from terrorists AFTER he funded terrorists, lol

On December 21, 2004 Raines accepted what he called "early retirement"[3] from his position as CEO while U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigators continued to investigate alleged accounting irregularities. He was accused by The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), the regulating body of Fannie Mae, of abetting widespread accounting errors, which included the shifting of losses so senior executives, such as himself, could earn large bonuses.[4]

Oh you mean that PRIVATE SECTOR guy Dubya had oversight over??????


lol

Is that like Benghazi where Obama had oversight over?.... You mean that DemocRAT Reins was ******* with the books! Oh, too funny!

Republican Rulebook:

When finding yourself losing an argument, scream Benghazi, Benghazi, BENGHAZI

 

[rightwinger]

The fact that tax receipts as a percentage of GDP fell following the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 shows a decrease in tax burden as share of GDP.

• Federal income tax revenues fell from 9.1% GDP in 1981 to a trough of 7.5% GDP in 1984, then rose to 8.0% GDP in 1989

Federal revenues were $599.3 billion in fiscal year 1981 and were $991.1 billion in fiscal year 1989. That’s an increase of just 65 percent. But of course a lot of that represented inflation. If 1981 revenues had only risen by the rate of inflation, they would have been $798 billion by 1989. Thus the real revenue increase was just 24 percent. However, the population also grew. Looking at real revenues per capita, we see that they rose from $3,470 in 1981 to $4,006 in 1989, an increase of just 15 percent. Finally, it is important to remember that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times, increasing revenues by $133 billion per year as of 1988 – about a third of the nominal revenue increase during Reagan’s presidency.

The fact is that the only metric that really matters is revenues as a share of the gross domestic product. By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989. This suggests that revenues were $66 billion lower in 1989 as a result of Reagan’s policies.


This is not surprising given that no one in the Reagan administration ever claimed that his 1981 tax cut would pay for itself or that it did. Reagan economists Bill Niskanen and Martin Anderson have written extensively on this oft-repeated myth. Conservative economist Lawrence Lindsey made a thorough effort to calculate the feedback effect in his 1990 book, The Growth Experiment. He concluded that the behavioral and macroeconomic effects of the 1981 tax cut, resulting from both supply-side and demand-side effects, recouped about a third of the static revenue loss.
No Gov. Pawlenty Tax Cuts Don t Pay for Themselves Stan Collender s Capital Gains and Games

Percentages can be deceiving.

Talk total dollars instead.

You do realize that a smaller percentage of a larger number can indeed be more than a higher percentage of a lower number don't you?

BZZZZ Wrong. Why do you think ECONOMISTS don't look at nominal dollars, dollars not adjusted for inflation? Add that to the growing labor force, THAT'S why they measure it via GDP, like ALL Gov't do.

NO SERIOUS ECONOMIST THINKS YOU CUT TAXES AT THE RATES WE'VE HAD FOR 34+ YEARS AND GET MORE REVENUES. None. Yes you can point to right wingers who lie for a living. But no serious economist thinks either Regan's tax cuts for the rich (50% first six years, that drove the deficit so badly he had to increase revenues 11 after that) NOR Dubya's 2 tax cuts (1 during war), came close to paying for themselves, much less brought in more revenues!!!!

Tax cuts do not have to be paid for as they do not cost the taxpayer anything.

UNLESS you cut spending, they sure as fukkk should be offset!!!!!

Of course 33 years of Reaganomics/Bushanomics where 90%+ of the debt can be traced back to their POLICIES, doesn't matter right?

Tax cuts do not cost anything there is no unless, no buts.

Government spending is what costs money. Hence government should be tightly controlled and only big enough to perform it's specifically enumerated functions so as to be as little of a burden on the people as possible.

Government provides services to We the People they are not a burden but an essential element of society

 

[rightwinger]

Anyone who hates government would believe that. We don't need no stinking government. They are a drain on our economy. We are better off without any government at all
Those who understand the function of government in society appreciate what it does and the role government employees play. Teachers, policemen, doctors, accountants, lawyers, scientists, engineers........all play a role in running our government

For one I never said any of that. So you can cut that shit out right now.

You can't accept the fact that government employees do not ADD to the bottom line they take from it. Government is a necessary evil and therefore should be kept as small as possible so as to relieve the burden of the people. It should not be expanded at every turn as you think.

There is no multiplier for government spending.

That thinking is voodoo economics if I ever saw it. If it were true then why not take 100% of everyone's money and have the magic government spending multiplier make it worth 3 times as much?

Again that is where you are wrong .......government is a necessary function and is essential to the operation of our society. Those employees who allow our government to function are not a drain on our society but an essential part of it.

As I said government is a necessary evil. It is necessary but it should be tightly controlled and only big enough to perform its enumerated functions at a bare minimum of cost so as not to burden the people.

And I said government employees do not add to the bottom line they reduce it.

How?

Really?

You can't figure out that taking X dollars from the private sector and then paying government workers less than X dollars results in a lower bottom line?

More money is taken from the private sector than is put back by government employees

Government employees provide functions that are essential for society to function. Things like keeping the WWII memorial open

 

[rightwinger]

The private sector contributed to a 5% GDP last quarter, they have doubled their stock value, executive salaries are at all time highs

Yet private sector employee wages are stagnant.

The problem is clearly with the wages being paid in the private sector, not the public sector which has maintained the same wage scale

Why are these employees not banding together and competing ?

Why are they not banding together and forming unions to force employers to pay better wages and benefits?

Because they've seen what unions can do to their members.

Unions only work when they have government help in their extortion.

Destroying the capability of workers to collectively bargain is a key contributor to our current low wages

 

[bripat9643]

Percentages can be deceiving.

Talk total dollars instead.

You do realize that a smaller percentage of a larger number can indeed be more than a higher percentage of a lower number don't you?

BZZZZ Wrong. Why do you think ECONOMISTS don't look at nominal dollars, dollars not adjusted for inflation? Add that to the growing labor force, THAT'S why they measure it via GDP, like ALL Gov't do.

NO SERIOUS ECONOMIST THINKS YOU CUT TAXES AT THE RATES WE'VE HAD FOR 34+ YEARS AND GET MORE REVENUES. None. Yes you can point to right wingers who lie for a living. But no serious economist thinks either Regan's tax cuts for the rich (50% first six years, that drove the deficit so badly he had to increase revenues 11 after that) NOR Dubya's 2 tax cuts (1 during war), came close to paying for themselves, much less brought in more revenues!!!!

Tax cuts do not have to be paid for as they do not cost the taxpayer anything.

UNLESS you cut spending, they sure as fukkk should be offset!!!!!

Of course 33 years of Reaganomics/Bushanomics where 90%+ of the debt can be traced back to their POLICIES, doesn't matter right?

Tax cuts do not cost anything there is no unless, no buts.

Government spending is what costs money. Hence government should be tightly controlled and only big enough to perform it's specifically enumerated functions so as to be as little of a burden on the people as possible.

Government provides services to We the People they are not a burden but an essential element of society

Nobody wants the so-called "services" government provides. Being fined thousands of dollars for filling in a pond on my land is not a service. Government is a burden. It definitely isn't "essential" by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[bripat9643]

For one I never said any of that. So you can cut that shit out right now.

You can't accept the fact that government employees do not ADD to the bottom line they take from it. Government is a necessary evil and therefore should be kept as small as possible so as to relieve the burden of the people. It should not be expanded at every turn as you think.

There is no multiplier for government spending.

That thinking is voodoo economics if I ever saw it. If it were true then why not take 100% of everyone's money and have the magic government spending multiplier make it worth 3 times as much?

Again that is where you are wrong .......government is a necessary function and is essential to the operation of our society. Those employees who allow our government to function are not a drain on our society but an essential part of it.

As I said government is a necessary evil. It is necessary but it should be tightly controlled and only big enough to perform its enumerated functions at a bare minimum of cost so as not to burden the people.

And I said government employees do not add to the bottom line they reduce it.

How?

Really?

You can't figure out that taking X dollars from the private sector and then paying government workers less than X dollars results in a lower bottom line?

More money is taken from the private sector than is put back by government employees

Government employees provide functions that are essential for society to function. Things like keeping the WWII memorial open

You mean the one thing Obama insisted on closing during the so-called "government shut down?"

 

[rightwinger]

BZZZZ Wrong. Why do you think ECONOMISTS don't look at nominal dollars, dollars not adjusted for inflation? Add that to the growing labor force, THAT'S why they measure it via GDP, like ALL Gov't do.

NO SERIOUS ECONOMIST THINKS YOU CUT TAXES AT THE RATES WE'VE HAD FOR 34+ YEARS AND GET MORE REVENUES. None. Yes you can point to right wingers who lie for a living. But no serious economist thinks either Regan's tax cuts for the rich (50% first six years, that drove the deficit so badly he had to increase revenues 11 after that) NOR Dubya's 2 tax cuts (1 during war), came close to paying for themselves, much less brought in more revenues!!!!

Tax cuts do not have to be paid for as they do not cost the taxpayer anything.

UNLESS you cut spending, they sure as fukkk should be offset!!!!!

Of course 33 years of Reaganomics/Bushanomics where 90%+ of the debt can be traced back to their POLICIES, doesn't matter right?

Tax cuts do not cost anything there is no unless, no buts.

Government spending is what costs money. Hence government should be tightly controlled and only big enough to perform it's specifically enumerated functions so as to be as little of a burden on the people as possible.

Government provides services to We the People they are not a burden but an essential element of society

Nobody wants the so-called "services" government provides. Being fined thousands of dollars for filling in a pond on my land is not a service. Government is a burden. It definitely isn't "essential" by any stretch of the imagination.

Interesting.......police, fire, teachers, doctors, engineers, scientists, economists

Nobody wants them except for nutbat libertarians

 

[rightwinger]

Again that is where you are wrong .......government is a necessary function and is essential to the operation of our society. Those employees who allow our government to function are not a drain on our society but an essential part of it.

As I said government is a necessary evil. It is necessary but it should be tightly controlled and only big enough to perform its enumerated functions at a bare minimum of cost so as not to burden the people.

And I said government employees do not add to the bottom line they reduce it.

How?

Really?

You can't figure out that taking X dollars from the private sector and then paying government workers less than X dollars results in a lower bottom line?

More money is taken from the private sector than is put back by government employees

Government employees provide functions that are essential for society to function. Things like keeping the WWII memorial open

You mean the one thing Obama insisted on closing during the so-called "government shut down?"

EXACTLY

The only essential government service that Republicans cared about

 

[Sarah G]

Again that is where you are wrong .......government is a necessary function and is essential to the operation of our society. Those employees who allow our government to function are not a drain on our society but an essential part of it.

As I said government is a necessary evil. It is necessary but it should be tightly controlled and only big enough to perform its enumerated functions at a bare minimum of cost so as not to burden the people.

And I said government employees do not add to the bottom line they reduce it.

How?

Really?

You can't figure out that taking X dollars from the private sector and then paying government workers less than X dollars results in a lower bottom line?

More money is taken from the private sector than is put back by government employees

Government employees provide functions that are essential for society to function. Things like keeping the WWII memorial open

You mean the one thing Obama insisted on closing during the so-called "government shut down?"

You mean when Ted Cruz shutdown government and was responsible for all of it. Then he tried to blame Obama just like all the other Republicans did.

 

[bripat9643]

As I said government is a necessary evil. It is necessary but it should be tightly controlled and only big enough to perform its enumerated functions at a bare minimum of cost so as not to burden the people.

And I said government employees do not add to the bottom line they reduce it.

How?

Really?

You can't figure out that taking X dollars from the private sector and then paying government workers less than X dollars results in a lower bottom line?

More money is taken from the private sector than is put back by government employees

Government employees provide functions that are essential for society to function. Things like keeping the WWII memorial open

You mean the one thing Obama insisted on closing during the so-called "government shut down?"

You mean when Ted Cruz shutdown government and was responsible for all of it. Then he tried to blame Obama just like all the other Republicans did.

Obama shut down the government. Only brainwashed drones like you were fooled.

 

[bripat9643]

As I said government is a necessary evil. It is necessary but it should be tightly controlled and only big enough to perform its enumerated functions at a bare minimum of cost so as not to burden the people.

And I said government employees do not add to the bottom line they reduce it.

How?

Really?

You can't figure out that taking X dollars from the private sector and then paying government workers less than X dollars results in a lower bottom line?

More money is taken from the private sector than is put back by government employees

Government employees provide functions that are essential for society to function. Things like keeping the WWII memorial open

You mean the one thing Obama insisted on closing during the so-called "government shut down?"

EXACTLY

The only essential government service that Republicans cared about

It wasn't "essential" but there was absolutely no reason to shut down other than to deliberately piss off veterans.

Apparently you failed to notice the fact that you contradicted yourself. You claimed "government employees provide functions that are essential for society to function," and then you admitted that a government employee, Obama, deliberately shut them down.

 

[bripat9643]

Tax cuts do not have to be paid for as they do not cost the taxpayer anything.

UNLESS you cut spending, they sure as fukkk should be offset!!!!!

Of course 33 years of Reaganomics/Bushanomics where 90%+ of the debt can be traced back to their POLICIES, doesn't matter right?

Tax cuts do not cost anything there is no unless, no buts.

Government spending is what costs money. Hence government should be tightly controlled and only big enough to perform it's specifically enumerated functions so as to be as little of a burden on the people as possible.

Government provides services to We the People they are not a burden but an essential element of society

Nobody wants the so-called "services" government provides. Being fined thousands of dollars for filling in a pond on my land is not a service. Government is a burden. It definitely isn't "essential" by any stretch of the imagination.

Interesting.......police, fire, teachers, doctors, engineers, scientists, economists

Nobody wants them except for nutbat libertarians

You mean there are no private security, firemen, teachers, doctors, engineers, scientists or economists?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Percentages can be deceiving.

Talk total dollars instead.

You do realize that a smaller percentage of a larger number can indeed be more than a higher percentage of a lower number don't you?

BZZZZ Wrong. Why do you think ECONOMISTS don't look at nominal dollars, dollars not adjusted for inflation? Add that to the growing labor force, THAT'S why they measure it via GDP, like ALL Gov't do.

NO SERIOUS ECONOMIST THINKS YOU CUT TAXES AT THE RATES WE'VE HAD FOR 34+ YEARS AND GET MORE REVENUES. None. Yes you can point to right wingers who lie for a living. But no serious economist thinks either Regan's tax cuts for the rich (50% first six years, that drove the deficit so badly he had to increase revenues 11 after that) NOR Dubya's 2 tax cuts (1 during war), came close to paying for themselves, much less brought in more revenues!!!!

Tax cuts do not have to be paid for as they do not cost the taxpayer anything.

UNLESS you cut spending, they sure as fukkk should be offset!!!!!

Of course 33 years of Reaganomics/Bushanomics where 90%+ of the debt can be traced back to their POLICIES, doesn't matter right?

Tax cuts do not cost anything there is no unless, no buts.

Government spending is what costs money. Hence government should be tightly controlled and only big enough to perform it's specifically enumerated functions so as to be as little of a burden on the people as possible.

Government provides services to We the People they are not a burden but an essential element of society

Government poses a financial burden on the people.

If you can't see that then you are naive to the point of retardation.

I have been saying all along that government is necessary haven't I?

There are many things in life that are necessary. Just because something in necessary does not mean it is inherently good.

 

[bripat9643]

BZZZZ Wrong. Why do you think ECONOMISTS don't look at nominal dollars, dollars not adjusted for inflation? Add that to the growing labor force, THAT'S why they measure it via GDP, like ALL Gov't do.

NO SERIOUS ECONOMIST THINKS YOU CUT TAXES AT THE RATES WE'VE HAD FOR 34+ YEARS AND GET MORE REVENUES. None. Yes you can point to right wingers who lie for a living. But no serious economist thinks either Regan's tax cuts for the rich (50% first six years, that drove the deficit so badly he had to increase revenues 11 after that) NOR Dubya's 2 tax cuts (1 during war), came close to paying for themselves, much less brought in more revenues!!!!

Tax cuts do not have to be paid for as they do not cost the taxpayer anything.

UNLESS you cut spending, they sure as fukkk should be offset!!!!!

Of course 33 years of Reaganomics/Bushanomics where 90%+ of the debt can be traced back to their POLICIES, doesn't matter right?

Tax cuts do not cost anything there is no unless, no buts.

Government spending is what costs money. Hence government should be tightly controlled and only big enough to perform it's specifically enumerated functions so as to be as little of a burden on the people as possible.

Government provides services to We the People they are not a burden but an essential element of society

Government poses a financial burden on the people.

If you can't see that then you are naive to the point of retardation.

I have been saying all along that government is necessary haven't I?

There are many things in life that are necessary. Just because something in necessary does not mean it is inherently good.

Government isn't necessary. We have lived with it for so long that we have deluded ourselves. Of course, that's just what the government criminals want.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Tax cuts do not have to be paid for as they do not cost the taxpayer anything.

UNLESS you cut spending, they sure as fukkk should be offset!!!!!

Of course 33 years of Reaganomics/Bushanomics where 90%+ of the debt can be traced back to their POLICIES, doesn't matter right?

Tax cuts do not cost anything there is no unless, no buts.

Government spending is what costs money. Hence government should be tightly controlled and only big enough to perform it's specifically enumerated functions so as to be as little of a burden on the people as possible.

Government provides services to We the People they are not a burden but an essential element of society

Government poses a financial burden on the people.

If you can't see that then you are naive to the point of retardation.

I have been saying all along that government is necessary haven't I?

There are many things in life that are necessary. Just because something in necessary does not mean it is inherently good.

Government isn't necessary. We have lived with it for so long that we have deluded ourselves. Of course, that's just what the government criminals want.

I believe that government is a necessary evil.

 

[rightwinger]

How?

Really?

You can't figure out that taking X dollars from the private sector and then paying government workers less than X dollars results in a lower bottom line?

More money is taken from the private sector than is put back by government employees

Government employees provide functions that are essential for society to function. Things like keeping the WWII memorial open

You mean the one thing Obama insisted on closing during the so-called "government shut down?"

You mean when Ted Cruz shutdown government and was responsible for all of it. Then he tried to blame Obama just like all the other Republicans did.

Obama shut down the government. Only brainwashed drones like you were fooled.

Lacking a Continuing Resolution out of Congress, President Obama had no authority under law to keep it open

All because of a Republican temper tantrum because they lost on Obamacare

 

[rightwinger]

BZZZZ Wrong. Why do you think ECONOMISTS don't look at nominal dollars, dollars not adjusted for inflation? Add that to the growing labor force, THAT'S why they measure it via GDP, like ALL Gov't do.

NO SERIOUS ECONOMIST THINKS YOU CUT TAXES AT THE RATES WE'VE HAD FOR 34+ YEARS AND GET MORE REVENUES. None. Yes you can point to right wingers who lie for a living. But no serious economist thinks either Regan's tax cuts for the rich (50% first six years, that drove the deficit so badly he had to increase revenues 11 after that) NOR Dubya's 2 tax cuts (1 during war), came close to paying for themselves, much less brought in more revenues!!!!

Tax cuts do not have to be paid for as they do not cost the taxpayer anything.

UNLESS you cut spending, they sure as fukkk should be offset!!!!!

Of course 33 years of Reaganomics/Bushanomics where 90%+ of the debt can be traced back to their POLICIES, doesn't matter right?

Tax cuts do not cost anything there is no unless, no buts.

Government spending is what costs money. Hence government should be tightly controlled and only big enough to perform it's specifically enumerated functions so as to be as little of a burden on the people as possible.

Government provides services to We the People they are not a burden but an essential element of society

Government poses a financial burden on the people.

If you can't see that then you are naive to the point of retardation.

I have been saying all along that government is necessary haven't I?

There are many things in life that are necessary. Just because something in necessary does not mean it is inherently good.

Of course contributing to the society from which you benefit is a burden. No society can function without a government and ours is the best on the planet