Republican spending is pretty crazy right now?

[Romarii]

Why is our federal deficit raising every year when our economy is doing great? This makes no sense to keep borrowing at these levels?

[Mihalik]

Republicans never gave a damn about the deficit.

It's just a number they rack up when in power as high as possible so when Democrats are in power they can bitch and moan about it.

This has been the trend since Reagan. They explode the deficit, then they cry about the debt.

Republican fiscal responsibility 101.

I guarantee to you this is what Fox News will be shrieking about 24/7 as soon as Warren is elected.

OMG THE DEFICIT!

[Zan15]

Why is our federal deficit raising every year when our economy is doing great? This makes no sense to keep borrowing at these levels?

because the economy is not doing great.

it would be even worse if they were not spending money like mad.

- - - Updated - - -

Republicans never gave a damn about the deficit.

It's just a number they rack up when in power as high as possible so when Democrats are in power they can bitch and moan about it.

This has been the trend since Reagan. They explode the deficit, then they cry about the debt.

Republican fiscal responsibility 101.

I guarantee to you this is what Fox News will be shrieking about 24/7 as soon as Warren is elected.

OMG THE DEFICIT!

Exactly while crying Obama increased the debt more than anyone from a dollar perspective...Reagan actually increased it 83% more @183% total vs 94-101% for Obama.

People forget the effect of compounding, inflation and increase in the money supply when comparing debt increases

in 4-6 presidencies a first term president will accumulate more debt then Obama did in 8 years, and it will be considered "not bad".

[Orbitus]

Why is our federal deficit raising every year when our economy is doing great? This makes no sense to keep borrowing at these levels?

Because of the Tax Cuts that only really effected the very rich. When the very rich don't pay their fair share in taxes, revenues go down.

[rrayy]

Because of the Tax Cuts that only really effected the very rich. When the very rich don't pay their fair share in taxes, revenues go down.

Wrong. Nothing more than left wing talking points. The idea of tax cuts is to stimulate job creation and investment which creates more revenue. At no time in this countries history has higher taxes led to prosperity.

[Kaleredar]

Wrong. Nothing more than left wing talking points. The idea of tax cuts is to stimulate job creation and investment which creates more revenue. At no time in this countries history has higher taxes led to prosperity.

You do know the “halcyon days of America’s past” that republicans fawn over, the 1950s and 1960s, had tax rates as high as 90% for top earners, right?

[Omega10]

Wrong. Nothing more than left wing talking points. The idea of tax cuts is to stimulate job creation and investment which creates more revenue. At no time in this countries history has higher taxes led to prosperity.

Well 90% corporate taxes in the 50s and 60s led to an economy where 1 person without a college education could afford a house and spouse and 4 children.

There may be other examples where high taxes led to good economic results, but this is one that popped off the top of my head.

[Orbitus]

Wrong. Nothing more than left wing talking points. The idea of tax cuts is to stimulate job creation and investment which creates more revenue. At no time in this countries history has higher taxes led to prosperity.

And it didn't do this. And what do you call post WWII til Reagan? You know, when we actually had growth and low deficits and debt? When top tax brackets were 90% and effective tax rates were about 40% for the rich? If you are going to be wrong, don't use bullshit right wing talking points.

[Zaydin]

It's hilarious. The GOP spent eight years under Obama clutching their pearls and cryign about how unfair it was for future generations to saddle them with a massive debt and deficit. And after eight years of Obama getting us down from trillion dollar deficits, as soon as the GOP got power again they pushed us right back ot trillion dollar deficits, helped in part by the Tax Scam of 2017 which largely benefited the wealthy.

The GOP doesn't care about spending. Don't believe them when they say they do; they go on massive spending sprees when they are in control.

To quote President Cheney: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter"

- - - Updated - - -

Wrong. Nothing more than left wing talking points. The idea of tax cuts is to stimulate job creation and investment which creates more revenue. At no time in this countries history has higher taxes led to prosperity.

Funny: Our economy and middle class was strongest when the rich had a 90% tax rate.

Meanwhile, trickle down economics have repeatedly been proven to not work. Just ask Kansas how well Sam Brownbacks experiment with Trickle Down worked.

[rrayy]

It's hilarious. The GOP spent eight years under Obama clutching their pearls and cryign about how unfair it was for future generations to saddle them with a massive debt and deficit. And after eight years of Obama getting us down from trillion dollar deficits, as soon as the GOP got power again they pushed us right back ot trillion dollar deficits, helped in part by the Tax Scam of 2017 which largely benefited the wealthy.

The GOP doesn't care about spending. Don't believe them when they say they do; they go on massive spending sprees when they are in control.

To quote President Cheney: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter"

- - - Updated - - -



Funny: Our economy and middle class was strongest when the rich had a 90% tax rate.

Meanwhile, trickle down economics have repeatedly been proven to not work. Just ask Kansas how well Sam Brownbacks experiment with Trickle Down worked.

No it wasn't. We were even deeper in debt. At no point in US history has anyone been able to tax their way to prosperity.

Also, Obama in no way reduced the deficit. And he also tripled the debt.

[Zaydin]

No it wasn't. We were even deeper in debt. At no point in US history has anyone been able to tax their way to prosperity.

Reagan and his trickle down turned the US from the worlds largest creditor nation to the largest debtor.

And again, ask Kansas how well trickle down economics worked out for them. It didn't work out so well in Louisina under Jindal, either.

When Obama left office, the deficit was ball park of 500-600 billion dollars. Under Trump, it's back to over a trillion dollars. And don't try blaming that on Democrats, either; it happened when the GOP still controlled the House.

[Paranoid Android]

Wrong. Nothing more than left wing talking points. The idea of tax cuts is to stimulate job creation and investment which creates more revenue. At no time in this countries history has higher taxes led to prosperity.

Clinton raised taxes in the 90's and it coincided with the first tech boom creating a surplus.

You are the one who is wrong. Companies do create jobs just cause. They don't hire just to hire. Companies create jobs to meet demand of their product and service.

[Orbitus]

No it wasn't. We were even deeper in debt. At no point in US history has anyone been able to tax their way to prosperity.

Also, Obama in no way reduced the deficit. And he also tripled the debt.

Wow, you should probably go take a fucking high school economics class, before you post again.

Also, Obama got started with a $1.1 trillion deficit thanks to Bush 2.0 fucking us, and he brought it down to nearly half, HOW THE FUCK DID HE NOT REDUCE THE DEFICITS?

[Edge-]

Wrong. Nothing more than left wing talking points. The idea of tax cuts is to stimulate job creation and investment which creates more revenue. At no time in this countries history has higher taxes led to prosperity.

Why didn't it work in Kansas when they tried it there? Why isn't it working now?

[Mormolyce]

At no point in US history has anyone been able to tax their way to prosperity.

Intellectually dishonest strawman argument. Nobody is arguing that taxes create "prosperity".

You're making the claim that Trump's tax cuts create jobs and investment. Onus is on you to prove that.

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has just published a deep dive into the economic impact of the cuts in their first year, and emerges from the water with a different picture. The CRS finds that the cuts have had virtually no effect on wages, haven’t contributed to a surge in investment, and haven’t come close to paying for themselves. Nor have they delivered a cut to the average taxpayer.

The negligible (at best) economic impact of the cuts shouldn’t surprise anyone, the CRS says. “Much of the tax cut was directed at businesses and higher-income individuals who are less likely to spend,” its analysts write. “Fiscal stimulus is limited in an economy that is at or near full employment.”

https://www.latimes.com/business/hil...529-story.html

Republicans in Congress and President Trump touted the benefits of Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 as game changing. Showering the richest Americans and corporations even more money was supposed to lead to more business investments. These investments, the argument went, would translate into more productivity growth. Workers would then supposedly see an additional $4,000 per year in wages. And faster economic growth and higher wages would result in more tax revenue, thus paying mainly for itself.

These were empty promises. Businesses did not use the windfall of new cash to invest in new machines, technology, office parks and manufacturing plants. Without an acceleration in business investment, though, American workers will not see the bumps in pay promised over the longer term. The richest Americans instead got even richer while corporations used a lot of the new money to keep shareholders happy . Federal budget deficits quickly ballooned because there was no faster growth and more revenue to offset the hundreds of billions lost each year to the predictably wasteful tax cuts.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/christi.../#116333e658c1

For many Republicans, it’s simply assumed that the party’s tax breaks are responsible for the nation’s economic health. That’s not, however, what the non-partisan Congressional Research Service found in its latest report – which Democrats have been eagerly touting for a reason.

“In 2018, gross domestic product (GDP) grew at 2.9%, about the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO’s) projected rate published in 2017 before the tax cut. On the whole, the growth effects tend to show a relatively small (if any) first-year effect on the economy. Although growth rates cannot indicate the tax cut’s effects on GDP, they tend to rule out very large effects particularly in the short run.”

As a Washington Post analysis of the report noted, the CRS – basically, Congress’ in-house think tank – didn’t do the Republican Party’s talking points any favors. The data showed the GOP’s tax plan didn’t pay for itself, didn’t make much of a difference on American workers’ wages, and didn’t boost domestic capital investment.

The tax policy did, however, deliver a massive break to big corporations, which didn’t amount to much for those businesses’ employees.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...conomic-growth

[rrayy]

Intellectually dishonest strawman argument. Nobody is arguing that taxes create "prosperity".

You're making the claim that Trump's tax cuts create jobs and investment. Onus is on you to prove that.


https://www.latimes.com/business/hil...529-story.html


https://www.forbes.com/sites/christi.../#116333e658c1


http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...conomic-growth

Job creation and investment in the economy is the intent of those tax cuts. That is the intent of all tax cuts. Of course, the government cannot force corporations to do both things if you just give them said tax cut with no incentives tied to them. What they did do regardless, though, was get the economy out of the stagnant position it was in.

Also,You will excuse me if I don't take seriously 3 outlets, two of which are known to be very far left and in the tank for the Democratic Party, who oppose all tax cuts and want to tax people into oblivion as being honest in their reporting.

[Zaydin]

You will excuse me if I don't take seriously 3 outlets, two of which are known to be very far left, who all oppose all tax cuts and want to tax people into oblivion as being honest in their reporting.

Translation: "They don't say what I want them to say and therefore they do not count".

[rrayy]

Translation: "They don't say what I want them to say and therefore they do not count".

Translation: They say what I want them to say, therefore they are automatically fact and I will make a "they don''t agree with me, so they don't count" statement to act like the bias doesn't exist and I can then claim I am right".

[Zaydin]

Translation: They say what I want them to say, therefore they are automatically fact and I will make a "they don''t agree with me, so they don't count" statement to act like the bias doesn't exist and I can then claim I am right".

LA Times: Left-center bias but with high factual reporting.

Forbes: Right-center bias with Mostly Factual rating.

MSNBC is the only one that you could argue is heavily left-biased, rated Left bias with Mostly Factual reporting.

[rrayy]

Why didn't it work in Kansas when they tried it there? Why isn't it working now?

You are trying to compare one state of 2.9 million people to a country of 335 million? Not to mention that Kansas doesn't have nearly the financial obligations the federal government has? Not even remotely close to the same situation.