Tax cut benefits

[Harpy Eagle]

Ahh, little cellblock finds actual facts to be funny! How cute!

/----/It's funny because I followed your link and saw this error message:
Bureau of Labor Statistics

​

Notice
Thursday, February 15, 2018 8:35 AM

The database is currently unavailable.
Your request was invalid for this Data Access Service. Please attempt other data requests. Thank you for using LABSTAT.

I then searched myself and saw the chart only goes back to 2001. So yours is a home made chart, perhaps?

View attachment 176874

That was not my link, that was the link from your fellow Trump zealot.

Here is a good link.

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

As for the chart, you can adjust it to any dates you want going back to 1948...but I guess the technology is too much for you to grasp.

View attachment 176877

/----/ Just clicked on your newest link.
Bureau of Labor Statistics

​

Notice
Thursday, February 15, 2018 8:57 AM

The database is currently unavailable.

Your request was invalid for this Data Access Service. Please attempt other data requests. Thank you for using LABSTAT.

Yeah, it seems to do that when you link to a table with dates other than the default. So, I took the link out. Blame it on Trump's BLS.

So, since you seem challenged, maybe this will help. LMGTFY

/----/ Yeah it spiked in 1983 but then started a decline. So what's your point Sparky?
US Unemployment Rate by Year

The point is there is no correlation between tax cuts and employment rate.

 

[AntonToo]

BULLSHIT - tax cuts didn’t make it into paychecks in January.

To answer your question - Ignorant rightwing idiots would think that.

Economists are generally considered people who understand economics and there is not a single serious analysis out there that shows Trump tax-cuts not causing significant deficits.

Revenues will be significantly down this year, of that there is no doubt.

/-----/ The CBO says you lie like a rug:
"But the latest CBO report does show how a growing economy can make up a lot of the difference between the advertised price of a tax cut and the actual impact on revenues.
The same report says that revenues for the first four months of the current fiscal year — which started last October — were $46 billion higher than the same period the year before." - Investors Business Daily.

Individual income and payroll taxes, it says, rose by $68 billion. "That change largely reflects increases in wages and salaries," the CBO says.

Those gains in wages and salaries are likely to continue, if not accelerate, under the tax cuts.

You clearly don't understand wtf you are reading. Why? Because whoever wrote that garbage WANTED to mislead you.

68 billion period STARTED IN OCTOBER (through January ytd) a period when there was right about ZERO actual tax-cuts

CBO says in no uncertain terms - these tax cuts will reduce revenues and the deepest impact will be within first few years, because they are front loaded.

/----/ Quick question, does the CBO score dynamically or are their predictions static? TIA

They do both.

Static scores give us apple to apple comparison of spending and tax cuts.

When CBO scored spending like Stimulus I don't recall ANYONE bitching how that is not accounting for secondary effects on revenues from that spending (dynamic scoring).

Here is what dynamic scoring looks like from MANY MANY MANY economists (who I assume you will not argue know something about economics)

We can expect SOME reduction in ultimate budget cost from economic feedbacks, but the reduction is fractional.

/----/ And we'll see over the course of the next year who is right.

I, and economists will be right, you and other right-wingers who believe whatever the fuck you want to believe will be WRONG.

We've been through this in 2001 and you are a fool to think that THIS TIME it will be significantly different.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Once again, I deal in facts and figures not opinions. I provide data to support my claims, is it too much to ask that you people do the same thing?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

the tax cuts just occurred, I will once a quarter or two goes by, k?

This is not the first time taxes have been cut in this country. Did the previous tax cuts have an impact on unemployment?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Thanks for the link. Now, lets put the two things together.

Jan 1982 taxes were cut....unemployment rose for 14 straight months
Jan 1993 taxes were raised....unemployment dropped for 24 straight months
Jan 2003 taxes were cut....unemployment rose for 8 months and then dropped for 29 months
Jan 2013 taxes were raised...unemployment dropped for 60 months.

/----. "Jan 1982 taxes were cut....unemployment rose for 14 straight months " It did not. It spiked in 1983 then went down
US Unemployment Rate by Year
Jan 1, 1989 5.40%
Jan 1, 1988 5.70%
Jan 1, 1987 6.60%
Jan 1, 1986 6.70%
Jan 1, 1985 7.30%
Jan 1, 1984 8.00%
Jan 1, 1983 10.40%
Jan 1, 1982 8.60%
Jan 1, 1981 7.50%
Jan 1, 1980 6.30%

You are aware that 14 months from Jan 1982 is in 1983? Right? There are 12 months in a year, so 14 months would move you to the next year. Do I need to draw you a picture?

 

[Cellblock2429]

the tax cuts just occurred, I will once a quarter or two goes by, k?

This is not the first time taxes have been cut in this country. Did the previous tax cuts have an impact on unemployment?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Thanks for the link. Now, lets put the two things together.

Jan 1982 taxes were cut....unemployment rose for 14 straight months
Jan 1993 taxes were raised....unemployment dropped for 24 straight months
Jan 2003 taxes were cut....unemployment rose for 8 months and then dropped for 29 months
Jan 2013 taxes were raised...unemployment dropped for 60 months.

/----. "Jan 1982 taxes were cut....unemployment rose for 14 straight months " It did not. It spiked in 1983 then went down
US Unemployment Rate by Year
Jan 1, 1989 5.40%
Jan 1, 1988 5.70%
Jan 1, 1987 6.60%
Jan 1, 1986 6.70%
Jan 1, 1985 7.30%
Jan 1, 1984 8.00%
Jan 1, 1983 10.40%
Jan 1, 1982 8.60%
Jan 1, 1981 7.50%
Jan 1, 1980 6.30%

You are aware that 14 months from Jan 1982 is in 1983? Right? There are 12 months in a year, so 14 months would move you to the next year. Do I need to draw you a picture?

/----/ You're correct. My bad. I was thinking 14 years.

 

[Rustic]

/-----/ The CBO says you lie like a rug:
"But the latest CBO report does show how a growing economy can make up a lot of the difference between the advertised price of a tax cut and the actual impact on revenues.
The same report says that revenues for the first four months of the current fiscal year — which started last October — were $46 billion higher than the same period the year before." - Investors Business Daily.

Individual income and payroll taxes, it says, rose by $68 billion. "That change largely reflects increases in wages and salaries," the CBO says.

Those gains in wages and salaries are likely to continue, if not accelerate, under the tax cuts.

You clearly don't understand wtf you are reading. Why? Because whoever wrote that garbage WANTED to mislead you.

68 billion period STARTED IN OCTOBER (through January ytd) a period when there was right about ZERO actual tax-cuts

CBO says in no uncertain terms - these tax cuts will reduce revenues and the deepest impact will be within first few years, because they are front loaded.

/----/ Quick question, does the CBO score dynamically or are their predictions static? TIA

They do both.

Static scores give us apple to apple comparison of spending and tax cuts.

When CBO scored spending like Stimulus I don't recall ANYONE bitching how that is not accounting for secondary effects on revenues from that spending (dynamic scoring).

Here is what dynamic scoring looks like from MANY MANY MANY economists (who I assume you will not argue know something about economics)

We can expect SOME reduction in ultimate budget cost from economic feedbacks, but the reduction is fractional.

/----/ And we'll see over the course of the next year who is right.

I, and economists will be right, you and other right-wingers who believe whatever the fuck you want to believe will be WRONG.

We've been through this in 2001 and you are a fool to think that THIS TIME it will be significantly different.

High taxes always destroy economies... fact

 

[AntonToo]

You clearly don't understand wtf you are reading. Why? Because whoever wrote that garbage WANTED to mislead you.

68 billion period STARTED IN OCTOBER (through January ytd) a period when there was right about ZERO actual tax-cuts

CBO says in no uncertain terms - these tax cuts will reduce revenues and the deepest impact will be within first few years, because they are front loaded.

/----/ Quick question, does the CBO score dynamically or are their predictions static? TIA

They do both.

Static scores give us apple to apple comparison of spending and tax cuts.

When CBO scored spending like Stimulus I don't recall ANYONE bitching how that is not accounting for secondary effects on revenues from that spending (dynamic scoring).

Here is what dynamic scoring looks like from MANY MANY MANY economists (who I assume you will not argue know something about economics)

We can expect SOME reduction in ultimate budget cost from economic feedbacks, but the reduction is fractional.

/----/ And we'll see over the course of the next year who is right.

I, and economists will be right, you and other right-wingers who believe whatever the fuck you want to believe will be WRONG.

We've been through this in 2001 and you are a fool to think that THIS TIME it will be significantly different.

High taxes always destroy economies... fact

STFU idiot.

High taxes were in the booming 50's and 60s.

 

[Rustic]

/----/ Quick question, does the CBO score dynamically or are their predictions static? TIA

They do both.

Static scores give us apple to apple comparison of spending and tax cuts.

When CBO scored spending like Stimulus I don't recall ANYONE bitching how that is not accounting for secondary effects on revenues from that spending (dynamic scoring).

Here is what dynamic scoring looks like from MANY MANY MANY economists (who I assume you will not argue know something about economics)

We can expect SOME reduction in ultimate budget cost from economic feedbacks, but the reduction is fractional.

/----/ And we'll see over the course of the next year who is right.

I, and economists will be right, you and other right-wingers who believe whatever the fuck you want to believe will be WRONG.

We've been through this in 2001 and you are a fool to think that THIS TIME it will be significantly different.

High taxes always destroy economies... fact

STFU idiot.

High taxes were in the booming 50's and 60s.

And still the government was spending more than they were taking in, we are paying for it now.
High taxes always hinder if not destroy a good economy... fact

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You clearly don't understand wtf you are reading. Why? Because whoever wrote that garbage WANTED to mislead you.

68 billion period STARTED IN OCTOBER (through January ytd) a period when there was right about ZERO actual tax-cuts

CBO says in no uncertain terms - these tax cuts will reduce revenues and the deepest impact will be within first few years, because they are front loaded.

/----/ Quick question, does the CBO score dynamically or are their predictions static? TIA

They do both.

Static scores give us apple to apple comparison of spending and tax cuts.

When CBO scored spending like Stimulus I don't recall ANYONE bitching how that is not accounting for secondary effects on revenues from that spending (dynamic scoring).

Here is what dynamic scoring looks like from MANY MANY MANY economists (who I assume you will not argue know something about economics)

We can expect SOME reduction in ultimate budget cost from economic feedbacks, but the reduction is fractional.

/----/ And we'll see over the course of the next year who is right.

I, and economists will be right, you and other right-wingers who believe whatever the fuck you want to believe will be WRONG.

We've been through this in 2001 and you are a fool to think that THIS TIME it will be significantly different.

High taxes always destroy economies... fact

Show me the numbers proving it since it is a fact.

 

[Rustic]

/----/ Quick question, does the CBO score dynamically or are their predictions static? TIA

They do both.

Static scores give us apple to apple comparison of spending and tax cuts.

When CBO scored spending like Stimulus I don't recall ANYONE bitching how that is not accounting for secondary effects on revenues from that spending (dynamic scoring).

Here is what dynamic scoring looks like from MANY MANY MANY economists (who I assume you will not argue know something about economics)

We can expect SOME reduction in ultimate budget cost from economic feedbacks, but the reduction is fractional.

/----/ And we'll see over the course of the next year who is right.

I, and economists will be right, you and other right-wingers who believe whatever the fuck you want to believe will be WRONG.

We've been through this in 2001 and you are a fool to think that THIS TIME it will be significantly different.

High taxes always destroy economies... fact

Show me the numbers proving it since it is a fact.

It’s just a fact, high taxes make people not want to spend any money on other goods and services. Live with it bedwetter

 

[Harpy Eagle]

This is not the first time taxes have been cut in this country. Did the previous tax cuts have an impact on unemployment?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Thanks for the link. Now, lets put the two things together.

Jan 1982 taxes were cut....unemployment rose for 14 straight months
Jan 1993 taxes were raised....unemployment dropped for 24 straight months
Jan 2003 taxes were cut....unemployment rose for 8 months and then dropped for 29 months
Jan 2013 taxes were raised...unemployment dropped for 60 months.

/----. "Jan 1982 taxes were cut....unemployment rose for 14 straight months " It did not. It spiked in 1983 then went down
US Unemployment Rate by Year
Jan 1, 1989 5.40%
Jan 1, 1988 5.70%
Jan 1, 1987 6.60%
Jan 1, 1986 6.70%
Jan 1, 1985 7.30%
Jan 1, 1984 8.00%
Jan 1, 1983 10.40%
Jan 1, 1982 8.60%
Jan 1, 1981 7.50%
Jan 1, 1980 6.30%

You are aware that 14 months from Jan 1982 is in 1983? Right? There are 12 months in a year, so 14 months would move you to the next year. Do I need to draw you a picture?

/----/ You're correct. My bad. I was thinking 14 years.

Its cool, we all make mistakes.

Here is my bottom line, I am a numbers guy, it is what I do for a living. I am not a theory guy, so when someone gives me a theory not backed up by numbers I pretty much dismiss it.

The numbers show that there is very little, if any correlation between tax rates and employment rates. As such, I do not believe there is any correlation between tax rates and employment rates.

Just like with tax cuts and revenue increases, the numbers show that revenue growth is slowed after a tax cut. The numbers are indisputable, the only argument against it is "in theory" tax cuts bring in more money.

A few days ago there was a thread about GDP growth and tax revenue growth where the OP tried to claim that the former led to the latter. Yet, his own numbers showed there was only a very weak correlation between the two. It sounds good in theory, but the numbers do not actually back it up.

Most things that sound good in theory, but our economy is much too complex for anyone one thing to have a large impact on it.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

They do both.

Static scores give us apple to apple comparison of spending and tax cuts.

When CBO scored spending like Stimulus I don't recall ANYONE bitching how that is not accounting for secondary effects on revenues from that spending (dynamic scoring).

Here is what dynamic scoring looks like from MANY MANY MANY economists (who I assume you will not argue know something about economics)

We can expect SOME reduction in ultimate budget cost from economic feedbacks, but the reduction is fractional.

/----/ And we'll see over the course of the next year who is right.

I, and economists will be right, you and other right-wingers who believe whatever the fuck you want to believe will be WRONG.

We've been through this in 2001 and you are a fool to think that THIS TIME it will be significantly different.

High taxes always destroy economies... fact

Show me the numbers proving it since it is a fact.

It’s just a fact, high taxes make people not want to spend any money on other goods and services. Live with it bedwetter

If it is a fact then there has to be numbers to back it up. Show me the numbers or it is nothing more than your unsubstantiated opinion.

You can call me all the names you want, it still will not change the FACT that any statement without support is nothing but opinion.

 

[Rustic]

/----/ And we'll see over the course of the next year who is right.

I, and economists will be right, you and other right-wingers who believe whatever the fuck you want to believe will be WRONG.

We've been through this in 2001 and you are a fool to think that THIS TIME it will be significantly different.

High taxes always destroy economies... fact

Show me the numbers proving it since it is a fact.

It’s just a fact, high taxes make people not want to spend any money on other goods and services. Live with it bedwetter

If it is a fact then there has to be numbers to back it up. Show me the numbers or it is nothing more than your unsubstantiated opinion.

You can call me all the names you want, it still will not change the FACT that any statement without support is nothing but opinion.

Only a fool wants to pay high taxes, and if anyone lives off of a budget of any type they’re going to spend less on things that really help the economy. The fucking federal government helps no economy, is not part of the economy, never will be part of the economy, depresses the economy.
Me just like millions of other people just like me spent far less During the obama years then what they would’ve with a conservative president and Congress.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Only a fool wants to pay high taxes, and if anyone lives off of a budget of any type they’re going to spend less on things that really help the economy. The fucking federal government helps no economy, is not part of the economy, never will be part of the economy, depresses the economy.

I do not want to pay higher taxes, but I also do not want to saddle my kids and grandkids with huge amounts of debt because we were greedy fuckers that wanted a huge government but would not pay for it.

Let me ask you this, what would you think of an individual who told you they were living an extravagant lifestyle they could not afford and are financing it through debt their kids would have to pay after they were dead? Would you think, that is one hell of a person or would you think they are a dirtbag?

I think the honest thing to do is to pay for what we spend and not leave it for the next generations. Why are you so willing to fuck over the next generation?

Me just like millions of other people just like me spent far less During the obama years then what they would’ve with a conservative president and Congress.

I have never let who the POTUS is dictate what I spend, why do you give the POTUS that much power over your life?

 

[AntonToo]

They do both.

Static scores give us apple to apple comparison of spending and tax cuts.

When CBO scored spending like Stimulus I don't recall ANYONE bitching how that is not accounting for secondary effects on revenues from that spending (dynamic scoring).

Here is what dynamic scoring looks like from MANY MANY MANY economists (who I assume you will not argue know something about economics)

We can expect SOME reduction in ultimate budget cost from economic feedbacks, but the reduction is fractional.

/----/ And we'll see over the course of the next year who is right.

I, and economists will be right, you and other right-wingers who believe whatever the fuck you want to believe will be WRONG.

We've been through this in 2001 and you are a fool to think that THIS TIME it will be significantly different.

High taxes always destroy economies... fact

STFU idiot.

High taxes were in the booming 50's and 60s.

And still the government was spending more than they were taking in, we are paying for it now.
High taxes always hinder if not destroy a good economy... fact

Wow you are totally on another planet. What we were doing in the 50's was PAYING FOR DEBTS from the WW2 effort, while keeping it flat in real terms in 60s and 70s. It wasn't until 80's that our real debt exploded. Do you recall what happened in the 80's? Do you recall what happened in 2000's?

 

[Cellblock2429]

Only a fool wants to pay high taxes, and if anyone lives off of a budget of any type they’re going to spend less on things that really help the economy. The fucking federal government helps no economy, is not part of the economy, never will be part of the economy, depresses the economy.

I do not want to pay higher taxes, but I also do not want to saddle my kids and grandkids with huge amounts of debt because we were greedy fuckers that wanted a huge government but would not pay for it.

Let me ask you this, what would you think of an individual who told you they were living an extravagant lifestyle they could not afford and are financing it through debt their kids would have to pay after they were dead? Would you think, that is one hell of a person or would you think they are a dirtbag?

I think the honest thing to do is to pay for what we spend and not leave it for the next generations. Why are you so willing to fuck over the next generation?

Me just like millions of other people just like me spent far less During the obama years then what they would’ve with a conservative president and Congress.

I have never let who the POTUS is dictate what I spend, why do you give the POTUS that much power over your life?

/----/ "but I also do not want to saddle my kids and grandkids with huge amounts of debt " Well Bravo for you. Not That higher taxes ever go to paying down the debt, but is used by corrupt career politicians to secure their reelection. But as long as higher taxes make you feel better, go ahead a write a check to the Treasury Dept to pay down the debt. Now get out your check book and start writing. CHOP CHOP
Government - Gift Contributions to Reduce Debt Held by the Public

 

[AntonToo]

Only a fool wants to pay high taxes, and if anyone lives off of a budget of any type they’re going to spend less on things that really help the economy. The fucking federal government helps no economy, is not part of the economy, never will be part of the economy, depresses the economy.

I do not want to pay higher taxes, but I also do not want to saddle my kids and grandkids with huge amounts of debt because we were greedy fuckers that wanted a huge government but would not pay for it.

Let me ask you this, what would you think of an individual who told you they were living an extravagant lifestyle they could not afford and are financing it through debt their kids would have to pay after they were dead? Would you think, that is one hell of a person or would you think they are a dirtbag?

I think the honest thing to do is to pay for what we spend and not leave it for the next generations. Why are you so willing to fuck over the next generation?

Me just like millions of other people just like me spent far less During the obama years then what they would’ve with a conservative president and Congress.

I have never let who the POTUS is dictate what I spend, why do you give the POTUS that much power over your life?

/----/ "but I also do not want to saddle my kids and grandkids with huge amounts of debt " Well Bravo for you. Not That higher taxes ever go to paying down the debt, but is used by corrupt career politicians to secure their reelection.

BULLSHIT excuse making - which spending got cut when tax-cuts were passed in 2000 and 2017? NO SPENDING GOT CUT is the answer.

There is at this point little-to-no relationship between what we spend and what we tax.

You support fiscally irresponsible policies - own up to that fact.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Only a fool wants to pay high taxes, and if anyone lives off of a budget of any type they’re going to spend less on things that really help the economy. The fucking federal government helps no economy, is not part of the economy, never will be part of the economy, depresses the economy.

I do not want to pay higher taxes, but I also do not want to saddle my kids and grandkids with huge amounts of debt because we were greedy fuckers that wanted a huge government but would not pay for it.

Let me ask you this, what would you think of an individual who told you they were living an extravagant lifestyle they could not afford and are financing it through debt their kids would have to pay after they were dead? Would you think, that is one hell of a person or would you think they are a dirtbag?

I think the honest thing to do is to pay for what we spend and not leave it for the next generations. Why are you so willing to fuck over the next generation?

Me just like millions of other people just like me spent far less During the obama years then what they would’ve with a conservative president and Congress.

I have never let who the POTUS is dictate what I spend, why do you give the POTUS that much power over your life?

/----/ "but I also do not want to saddle my kids and grandkids with huge amounts of debt " Well Bravo for you. Not That higher taxes ever go to paying down the debt, but is used by corrupt career politicians to secure their reelection.

BULLSHIT excuse making - which spending got cut when tax-cuts were passed in 2000 and 2017? NO SPENDING GOT CUT is the answer.

There is at this point little-to-no relationship between what we spend and what we tax.

You support fiscally irresponsible policies - own up to that fact.

/----/ As a member of the Tea Party, I support massive spending cuts -- just for the record.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Only a fool wants to pay high taxes, and if anyone lives off of a budget of any type they’re going to spend less on things that really help the economy. The fucking federal government helps no economy, is not part of the economy, never will be part of the economy, depresses the economy.

I do not want to pay higher taxes, but I also do not want to saddle my kids and grandkids with huge amounts of debt because we were greedy fuckers that wanted a huge government but would not pay for it.

Let me ask you this, what would you think of an individual who told you they were living an extravagant lifestyle they could not afford and are financing it through debt their kids would have to pay after they were dead? Would you think, that is one hell of a person or would you think they are a dirtbag?

I think the honest thing to do is to pay for what we spend and not leave it for the next generations. Why are you so willing to fuck over the next generation?

Me just like millions of other people just like me spent far less During the obama years then what they would’ve with a conservative president and Congress.

I have never let who the POTUS is dictate what I spend, why do you give the POTUS that much power over your life?

/----/ "but I also do not want to saddle my kids and grandkids with huge amounts of debt " Well Bravo for you. Not That higher taxes ever go to paying down the debt, but is used by corrupt career politicians to secure their reelection. But as long as higher taxes make you feel better, go ahead a write a check to the Treasury Dept to pay down the debt. Now get out your check book and start writing. CHOP CHOP
Government - Gift Contributions to Reduce Debt Held by the Public

Typical zealot answer. Fuck trying to do anything about spending, fuck caring about the next generations, just give it all to you now and let them pay for it.

You are the problem with our country, you are why we keep spending more than we take in.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Only a fool wants to pay high taxes, and if anyone lives off of a budget of any type they’re going to spend less on things that really help the economy. The fucking federal government helps no economy, is not part of the economy, never will be part of the economy, depresses the economy.

I do not want to pay higher taxes, but I also do not want to saddle my kids and grandkids with huge amounts of debt because we were greedy fuckers that wanted a huge government but would not pay for it.

Let me ask you this, what would you think of an individual who told you they were living an extravagant lifestyle they could not afford and are financing it through debt their kids would have to pay after they were dead? Would you think, that is one hell of a person or would you think they are a dirtbag?

I think the honest thing to do is to pay for what we spend and not leave it for the next generations. Why are you so willing to fuck over the next generation?

Me just like millions of other people just like me spent far less During the obama years then what they would’ve with a conservative president and Congress.

I have never let who the POTUS is dictate what I spend, why do you give the POTUS that much power over your life?

/----/ "but I also do not want to saddle my kids and grandkids with huge amounts of debt " Well Bravo for you. Not That higher taxes ever go to paying down the debt, but is used by corrupt career politicians to secure their reelection. But as long as higher taxes make you feel better, go ahead a write a check to the Treasury Dept to pay down the debt. Now get out your check book and start writing. CHOP CHOP
Government - Gift Contributions to Reduce Debt Held by the Public

Typical zealot answer. Fuck trying to do anything about spending, fuck caring about the next generations, just give it all to you now and let them pay for it.

You are the problem with our country, you are why we keep spending more than we take in.

/----/ I'll type slowly so you can follow. I'm Tea Party conservative. I want massive cuts to spending. My one vote only goes so far in my Blue State and my pleas to the RINOs in Congress fall on deaf ears. So when was the last time you voted for a fiscal conservative?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

/----/ I'll type slowly so you can follow. I'm Tea Party conservative. I want massive cuts to spending. My one vote only goes so far in my Blue State and my pleas to the RINOs in Congress fall on deaf ears. So when was the last time you voted for a fiscal conservative?

It is easy to call yourself a Tea Party conservative all the while voting for people who keep spending more and more.

2016, I voted for the only fiscal conservative that was on the ballot

When was the last time you did?