Did you not see the graphic above with "tax cuts 3 trillion" in it?I think the tax cuts would've been fine if the whole Middle East nonsense never happened. Should never have happened to begin with. But a lot of GWB's money was spent on the worst economic crisis since the great depression, too. Obama just continued it it. Everybody loves cuts until it's a cut that effects them.
Yeah, the same kind of idiots that call 99 weeks of unemployment spending an "investment."
Did you not see the graphic above with "tax cuts 3 trillion" in it?
Doginhouseburningthisisfine.jpg
This is all Obama's fault.
Without the war and the economy tanking it may have been fine. So long as spending were kept under control. The Dems could have ended the tax cuts but there was the whole recession thing going on. It honestly just seems like both sides ares trying to buy votes with spending at this point, country be damned! I'd also like to see a graph made by a right winger that includes Obama's term, since that graph was clearly made by a lefty.
Welp, guess we need to start cutting entitlements to get the deficit under control!!
When in doubt, just make up a conspiracy. Why be critical of your "team" when you can be brain dead and just go with your feels.
Context, what righties think is shorthand for text messages from convicts.
Oh please. GWB accomplished the deed cutting taxes & starting two wars at the same time. Obama did it because we faced the gravest financial crisis since 1929. Trump & the GOP are doing it to satisfy greed at the top.
So because it's for something progressives like (such as unemployment) the deficit spending doesn't count? Did the people who own that debt make a special agreement with you that it doesn't need to be repaid, "oh because I lent the money during the 'gravest financial crisis since 1929' then don't worry about paying it back"?
Welp, guess we need to start cutting entitlements to get the deficit under control!!
You spend like this when you're in a crisis not when you're, probably, near/at the top of an economic cycle. That's how you keep a recession from becoming a major depression and shorten the time to start recovering. What the GOP is doing is stupid, greedy, and will ultimately be harmful if we are actually in need of stimulus but have blown out the fiscal picture leaving few good tools in the box to counteract.
You spend like this when you're in a crisis not when you're, probably, near/at the top of an economic cycle. That's how you keep a recession from becoming a major depression and shorten the time to start recovering. What the GOP is doing is stupid, greedy, and will ultimately be harmful if we are actually in need of stimulus but have blown out the fiscal picture leaving few good tools in the box to counteract.
You spend to stimulate the economy when the economy needs to be stimulated, not when the economy is near the top.So because it's for something progressives like (such as unemployment) the deficit spending doesn't count? Did the people who own that debt make a special agreement with you that it doesn't need to be repaid, "oh because I lent the money during the 'gravest financial crisis since 1929' then don't worry about paying it back"?
Thanks for perfectly illustrating my earlier point "Both sides only care about deficits when it’s being used to fund giveaways to the other side’s pet interest groups." People like you are one step beyond even that and don't even seem to have the mental clarity that you're even doing deficit spending along with being delusional about it being an "investment" instead of just a plain old expense/transfer payment.
I thought that deficits don't matter....and now they do (and vice versa)? What changed? Hmmmm.
And repeated by both parties since...depending on who's in power."Deficits don't matter" is a republican argument, started by Dick Cheney.
So because it's for something progressives like (such as unemployment) the deficit spending doesn't count? Did the people who own that debt make a special agreement with you that it doesn't need to be repaid, "oh because I lent the money during the 'gravest financial crisis since 1929' then don't worry about paying it back"?
Thanks for perfectly illustrating my earlier point "Both sides only care about deficits when it’s being used to fund giveaways to the other side’s pet interest groups." People like you are one step beyond even that and don't even seem to have the mental clarity that you're even doing deficit spending along with being delusional about it being an "investment" instead of just a plain old expense/transfer payment.
Don't try to explain that to brain dead Glenn (it's been tried over and over and over and over)....he'll simply ignore it, be befuddled by it and ignore it, or ignore it and continue his spewing of verbal diarrhea without a clue.
I think the tax cuts would've been fine if the whole Middle East nonsense never happened. Should never have happened to begin with. But a lot of GWB's money was spent on the worst economic crisis since the great depression, too. Obama just continued it it. Everybody loves cuts until it's a cut that effects them.
glenn1: not an economist, not even pretending to be oneSo it's kinda like eating extra desserts at Thanksgiving where people try to justify it to themselves that because it's a holiday "the calories don't count"?
Are both sides still responsible when only one side controls all levels of government?I'm not on the Republican side of this particular tax cut issue, even though I favor, in theory, as lean a government as practical. Historically, either one party or the other will abdicate part of their responsibilities whenever fiscal matters come up for a vote. "Bothsides" are responsible, despite the sneering dismissal here of the concept that we ALL share responsibility for the well-being of our nation. If spending increases are inevitable, it's imperative not to decrease taxes (talking to you, Republicans) and if revenue decreases are inevitable, it's imperative not to increase spending (talking to you, Democrats). But each side works to accomplish the most achievable part of their goals in direct opposition to the other, which has the unhappy consequence in fiscal policy of maximizing negative consequences. What this is in practice is deliberate self-destructive behavior akin to a scorched earth policy, and it's only going to get worse.
I'm not on the Republican side of this particular tax cut issue, even though I favor, in theory, as lean a government as practical. Historically, either one party or the other will abdicate part of their responsibilities whenever fiscal matters come up for a vote. "Bothsides" are responsible, despite the sneering dismissal here of the concept that we ALL share responsibility for the well-being of our nation. If spending increases are inevitable, it's imperative not to decrease taxes (talking to you, Republicans) and if revenue decreases are inevitable, it's imperative not to increase spending (talking to you, Democrats). But each side works to accomplish the most achievable part of their goals in direct opposition to the other, which has the unhappy consequence in fiscal policy of maximizing negative consequences. What this is in practice is deliberate self-destructive behavior akin to a scorched earth policy, and it's only going to get worse.
