1. #1781
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    That's why I literally called for small steps, like stopping spending increases for 5 years.

    He's not right, because his numbers are way, way off.
    thats not a small step thats like cutting off your leg to lose weight and no he's not, between bush taking a sledge hammer to what was left of bank regulations that exploded the door to the housing crisis, his war of lies and the tax cuts. Further more the deficit reduction did stall in the last few years but Obama went from bush's last fiscal year of 1.4T to 665B, sure it was an uptick from his lowest fiscal year deficit of 483b, to complain about that when he started at Bush's 1.4T is nothing short of comical

    2019 was 984b and 2020 was 3.7t in fiscal deficits under Trump

  2. #1782
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    That's not what I said, I said GOP Presidents tend to have higher deficits, and GOP congresses tend to have lower.

    We never stopped spending massively, which is the point.
    GOP congresses do not have lower deficits. That only happened during the Clinton years and Clinton never had to deal with any massive problems like Obama. Reagan and Bush 1 were fuck ups but they didn't give Clinton anything as horrible as a massive recession or two unpayed for wars. When the GOP had congress during the Obama years deficits increased.

  3. #1783
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormspellz View Post
    thats not a small step thats like cutting off your leg to lose weight and no he's not, between bush taking a sledge hammer to what was left of bank regulations that exploded the door to the housing crisis, his war of lies and the tax cuts. Further more the deficit reduction did stall in the last few years but Obama went from bush's last fiscal year of 1.4T to 665B, sure it was an uptick from his lowest fiscal year deficit of 483b, to complain about that when he started at Bush's 1.4T is nothing short of comical

    2019 was 984b and 2020 was 3.7t in fiscal deficits under Trump
    The point isn’t about decreasing spending, he wants no taxes.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    GOP congresses do not have lower deficits. That only happened during the Clinton years and Clinton never had to deal with any massive problems like Obama. Reagan and Bush 1 were fuck ups but they didn't give Clinton anything as horrible as a massive recession or two unpayed for wars. When the GOP had congress during the Obama years deficits increased.

    Let alone the first 2 years of Trump.

    - - - Updated - - -
    @Machismo, let’s combine steps of reducing taxes and shrinking government. How far do you propose we take that? Reminder, I’m on your train now. I just want your sage advice.

  4. #1784
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    That’s not what you asked for. Stop moving goalposts and answer the question.
    Oh, I've been calling for that for years.

    Hence the reason why we can lower taxes.

    You're welcome.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Stormspellz View Post
    thats not a small step thats like cutting off your leg to lose weight and no he's not, between bush taking a sledge hammer to what was left of bank regulations that exploded the door to the housing crisis, his war of lies and the tax cuts. Further more the deficit reduction did stall in the last few years but Obama went from bush's last fiscal year of 1.4T to 665B, sure it was an uptick from his lowest fiscal year deficit of 483b, to complain about that when he started at Bush's 1.4T is nothing short of comical

    2019 was 984b and 2020 was 3.7t in fiscal deficits under Trump
    Bush's last year of deficits was huge, and just like Trump's (and Biden's will be) it's because of the bailout. SO, if you are going to give Obama a pass for huge deficits, the same can be said for Bush and his last one. They were fundamentally for the same reasons. I have no desire to give either of them a pass.

    So, the very same people who are screaming to get more bailouts, don't really get to complain about the deficits caused by those bailouts.

    https://www.spokesman.com/stories/20...d-senate-1900/

    https://datalab.usaspending.gov/amer...eficit/trends/

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    GOP congresses do not have lower deficits. That only happened during the Clinton years and Clinton never had to deal with any massive problems like Obama. Reagan and Bush 1 were fuck ups but they didn't give Clinton anything as horrible as a massive recession or two unpayed for wars. When the GOP had congress during the Obama years deficits increased.
    Clinton years, some of Obama's years, and even some of Bush's years.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    The point isn’t about decreasing spending, he wants no taxes.

    - - - Updated - - -




    Let alone the first 2 years of Trump.

    - - - Updated - - -
    @Machismo, let’s combine steps of reducing taxes and shrinking government. How far do you propose we take that? Reminder, I’m on your train now. I just want your sage advice.
    Let's start by stopping spending increases for 5 years.

    Baby steps.
    Last edited by Machismo; 2021-04-14 at 04:17 AM.

  5. #1785
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Bush's last year of deficits was huge, and just like Trump's (and Biden's will be) it's because of the bailout. SO, if you are going to give Obama a pass for huge deficits, the same can be said for Bush and his last one. They were fundamentally for the same reasons. I have no desire to give either of them a pass.

    SO, the very same people who are screaming to get more bailouts, don't really get to complain about the deficits caused by those bailouts.
    Bush's 2008 deficit was understandable although I would have examine the specifics of it to see where the money went. I don't recall anything too stupid. It would've been lower if it weren't for two unnecessary wars that were mostly paid for by Obama.

    Trump's covid deficits were just another money giveaway to the rich. Biden's covid deficit largely targeted lower income people ie people who actually need the money and people who will spend the money.

  6. #1786
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    Bush's 2008 deficit was understandable although I would have examine the specifics of it to see where the money went. I don't recall anything too stupid.

    Trump's covid deficits were just another money giveaway to the rich. Biden's covid deficit largely targeted lower income people ie people who actually need the money and people who will spend the money.
    I agree about these Covid bailouts, they were terrible. Reagan used to be the least fiscally responsible President in history, until Trump came along.

    But, we cannot forget who voted for those bailouts at the congressional level.

  7. #1787
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    I agree about these Covid bailouts, they were terrible. Reagan used to be the least fiscally responsible President in history, until Trump came along.

    But, we cannot forget who voted for those bailouts at the congressional level.
    A small amount of money still went to regular people. The Dems passed what they were able to get passed. A genuinely useful Covid bill would've never gotten past McConnell. As soon as the Dems got power they spent money usefully.

  8. #1788
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    A small amount of money still went to regular people. The Dems passed what they were able to get passed. A genuinely useful Covid bill would've never gotten past McConnell. As soon as the Dems got power they spent money usefully.
    the Dems voted for it, that's on them. They get to own it, just like Trump and Biden do for signing it.

  9. #1789
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    the Dems voted for it, that's on them. They get to own it, just like Trump and Biden do for signing it.
    Its almost like you don't understand compromise.

    Biden's covid relief wasn't TrumpCuts3.0.

  10. #1790
    @Machismo how small do you want to shrink? And since you support a government that restricts liberty, your words, what size should it be? How do we fund it once we eliminate taxes?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    the Dems voted for it, that's on them. They get to own it, just like Trump and Biden do for signing it.
    How dare they help people in need!

  11. #1791
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    @Machismo how small do you want to shrink? And since you support a government that restricts liberty, your words, what size should it be? How do we fund it once we eliminate taxes?

    - - - Updated - - -



    How dare they help people in need!
    Like I said, let's start with stopping spending increases for 5 years.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    Its almost like you don't understand compromise.

    Biden's covid relief wasn't TrumpCuts3.0.
    it was a compromise, and they voted for it.

    That means they own it.

  12. #1792
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Well, we start by lowering taxes. Let me know when that happens.
    This is where you said we start. I showed us doing that. Answer the question. Goal post moving not accepted.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Like I said, let's start with stopping spending increases for 5 years.

    - - - Updated - - -



    it was a compromise, and they voted for it.

    That means they own it.
    And you own being a corporatist.

  13. #1793
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    This is where you said we start. I showed us doing that. Answer the question. Goal post moving not accepted.

    - - - Updated - - -



    And you own being a corporatist.
    We're not doing that, not even close. Our budgets keep getting bigger and bigger.

  14. #1794
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    We're not doing that, not even close. Our budgets keep getting bigger and bigger.
    Poor kid doesn’t know the difference between taxes and the budget. Let me know when you’re ready to discuss how you plan on funding Government. Dunking on you is getting boring when you keep rolling over and admitting you were lying.

  15. #1795
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    Poor kid doesn’t know the difference between taxes and the budget. Let me know when you’re ready to discuss how you plan on funding Government. Dunking on you is getting boring when you keep rolling over and admitting you were lying.
    Reduce spending, then there's less to fund.

    It's not that complicated.

  16. #1796
    The Unstoppable Force Mayhem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    pending...
    Posts
    22,696
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    The point isn’t about decreasing spending, he wants no taxes.
    Which of course means, he doesn't want government, despite claiming he wants some government.

    He just doesn't want anyone to have to pay for it or just some to pay for it, maybe paying for government is optional in his utopia. He can't explain anything past step 1 which consists of "lower taxes". That's it, that's what all of these pages and pages of back and forth nonsense boils down to.

    Each and every one of his positions rests on a contradiction. He wants freedom and liberty for everyone and is against all regulation that doesn't regulate an act of harm. Yet he wants to reduce government so much that they can't regulate any acts of harm. He claims to be against corporations using government to regulate away competition yet brings an example of a regulation that increased competition. He is against corporations using government to use as a tool to further their means yet wants them to have a bigger say than smaller entities because they should have the freedom to use money as speech.

    The result, no government for the people, some government for the rich.
    Quote Originally Posted by ash
    So, look um, I'm not a grief counselor, but if it's any consolation, I have had to kill and bury loved ones before. A bunch of times actually.
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    I never said I was knowledge-able and I wouldn't even care if I was the least knowledge-able person and the biggest dumb-ass out of all 7.8 billion people on the planet.

  17. #1797
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    Which of course means, he doesn't want government, despite claiming he wants some government.

    He just doesn't want anyone to have to pay for it or just some to pay for it, maybe paying for government is optional in his utopia. He can't explain anything past step 1 which consists of "lower taxes". That's it, that's what all of these pages and pages of back and forth nonsense boils down to.

    Each and every one of his positions rests on a contradiction. He wants freedom and liberty for everyone and is against all regulation that doesn't regulate an act of harm. Yet he wants to reduce government so much that they can't regulate any acts of harm. He claims to be against corporations using government to regulate away competition yet brings an example of a regulation that increased competition. He is against corporations using government to use as a tool to further their means yet wants them to have a bigger say than smaller entities because they should have the freedom to use money as speech.

    The result, no government for the people, some government for the rich.
    Let's not forget what his stance against all regulation would also result in; monopolies. The fattest and most gruesome monopolies that has ever existed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ransath View Post
    Money laundering, especially prior to his election? I couldn't give a flying fuck.

  18. #1798
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Reduce spending, then there's less to fund.

    It's not that complicated.
    Ok, you didn’t ask for that. You said step 1 is lowering taxes.

  19. #1799
    The Insane Glorious Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In my bunker leading uprisings
    Posts
    17,972
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    The point isn’t about decreasing spending, he wants no taxes.

    [COLOR="#417394"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - .
    He doesn't actually want that because it would mean no private property, no markets and no capitalism. Those things can only function within the boundaries of a state that creates and enforces the rules with which they operate. The state needs taxation in order to give currency value, in order to help control inflation and in order to marshall resources for things like the courts and the police.
    The hammer comes down:
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    Normal should be reduced in difficulty. Heroic should be reduced in difficulty.
    And the tiny fraction for whom heroic raids are currently well tuned? Too bad,so sad! With the arterial bleed of subs the fastest it's ever been, the vanity development that gives you guys your own content is no longer supportable.

  20. #1800
    Well...machismo's finally come out of the closet and showing himself to be against progressive financial taxation and blamed everything on democrats and in full support of Trump's tax cuts.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •