Ok, do you have proof Bush’s tax cuts led to enough economic growth to make up for the lost revenue?
Bonus if you can do it without statistics.
Well, they did put out…
dare I say it, dare I say it
(snort)
The Pledge to America.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Oh, using the offer of aid to blackmail desperate people into submitting to being preached at. How very noble of them. :rolleyes:
With money they’ve extracted mostly from gullible lower class people to boot.
Still practically speaking, the poor listening to the Gospel and having a good meal is better than being hungry in the streets? Unless you’re such an atheist fanatic that even the slightest concession toward theism is wicked and evil you have to acknowledge churches are doing some good.
Ideologically, of course, they’re not obliged to come up with one; their theory is that the economy will usually fix itself if government leaves it alone. Electorally, of course, they’re usually obliged to come up with one anyway, but this cycle the voters were more forgiving/trusting on that point.
No-one’s arguing otherwise. DT’s point is that it’s not disinterested help, they do it for their own motives. If it didn’t result in converts they wouldn’t bother.
Government workers don’t work? Or they do not participate in the economy? Or they participate in some parallel non-economy?
And, name one single time when this tactic worked.
There are a lot of altar boys who might argue with that.
Exactly. If Pepsi ran a soup kitchen where they handed out Pepsis and covered the walls in advertisements for Pepsi, that’s an advertising program not a charitable venture. And that’s what religious “charity” typically is - an advertising gimmick.
Why should I want to prove such a thing? Did I make such a claim? I said that you were wrong in thinking that “The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities” is non-partisan. Was it a nice, seemingly non-partisan name of this organization or was there some other reason for your misconception?
Fine.
How about these:
Aren’t they opposed to amnesty? This would help reduce the trend of ‘importing poverty’.
Thank you for proving my point. There are only two possibilities: either you did not hear about the dot-com bubble and the housing bubble and you honestly didn’t realize that their dates hugely affected any such comparison or you knew about them but posted this anyway. You conveniently wrote about the presidency without writing about the control of the Congress, which is easily just as important. Why? See this: http://dshort.com/articles/GDP-and-politics.html - there is no pattern. And before you make another bad assumption that by writing this I’m defending all of Bush’s decisions - I’m not. I just don’t like to see such blatant manipulation of the data in an attempt to prove a partisan point.
So, in your non-partisan and unbiased opinion, your opinion is non-partisan and unbiased.
Who told you that I’m non-partisan? I pointed out gaping factual holes in Whack-a-Mole’s partisan arguments. Nothing more.
Pretty much. But that won’t happen if government keeps messing up the playing field.
The best thing the government could do is just stop doing so much. Announce a freeze on major new regulations. Adopt a credible plan to at least control the increase in spending and flatten it out with some reasonable deficit reductions as a result. Stop demonizing investors and business people. Launch a review of the health care bill with an eye towards reforming/removing/delaying the more expensive aspects of it. Start serious discussions towards reforming entitlements, because the markets are getting increasingly spooked by the coming entitlement tsunami.
The same one I’ve been hearing about for forty years?
What the economy needs is high government spending in the short run to boost demand combined with a credible plan for fiscal austerity in the longer run to reduce the deficit. What the Republicans will likely propose will do exactly the opposite: more tax cuts for the wealthy which will do very little to boost demand now but which will seriously damage the long-run fiscal balance.
The historical record in the last three decades is pretty clear. The Reagan tax cuts played a major role in the massive 80’s deficits. The Bush(1)/Clinton tax increases played a major role in bringing the budget into balance in the 90’s. The Bush(2) tax cuts helped create the large deficits of the last decade. And now the Republicans seem to want yet another decade of even higher deficits while piously crowing about fiscal prudence.
My partisan point from the Rupert Murdoch owned Wall Street Journal? Cuz we all know how liberal Rupert Murdoch is right? :rolleyes:
The Washington Post…another partisan hack of a newspaper. :rolleyes:
The Atlantic maybe but they quoted from that well known partisan governmental agency known as the Census Bureau. :rolleyes:
You can plug any graphs you want. You can blame congress if you want. I’ll re-post this:
“The current President Bush, once taking account how long he’s been in office, shows the worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records.”
Which, I might add, was the specific issue I was answering (Bush’s performance on creating jobs). I provided distinct data points on his jobs record and you want to blabber about partisanship. :rolleyes:
Most of that was during a republican held congress as well.
Oh, so the economy is gonna fix itself. That’s cool, that means the galaxy sized amounts of money that have been handed out to those that were responsible for the crisis in the first place, can be entirely seized by the government and used instead to cull the deficit?
Careful with your blinders, if worn too tightly, they can hamper the flow of blood to the head…
If you mean TARP, that gets paid back. The problem being that Obama and the Democrats spent the paybacks too.
Regards,
Shodan