Okay, Doc, howzabout answering some questions? Try to be specific.
Why didn't GOP reduce spending through the reconciliation process, just as they recklessly cut taxes?
Why did the GOP kick Pay/Go to the curb?
Why add prescription coverage entitlement without adding the revenue to pay for it?
Why did the GOP kick Pay/Go to the curb?
Why add prescription coverage entitlement without adding the revenue to pay for it?
How long should it take to balance the budget? Don't cop out - what is your estimate? How long should it take someone who inherits a collapsed economy with a $1.3 deficit?
How come our two supply side presidents enacted tax cuts which were followed by massive deficits? By the way - they were record deficits measured in nominal dollars or as a percentage of GDP. Why did that happen to them and to no one else in our lifetime?
I know the truth hurts, Doc. You can't solve your problem if you won't admit you have it. It is time to face up to the GOP legacy.
5 comments:
Okay, Doc, howzabout answering some questions? Try to be specific.OK I WILL, SO YOU CAN SEE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.
If Republicans want reduced spending and balanced budgets, why didn't they do that when they had a monopoly on power? NOW I KNOW YOU READ A LOT OF PAPERS AND KNOW THAT THE SENATE DEMOCRATS BLOCKED A LOT OF REFORMS...THEY TRIED.
Why didn't GOP reduce spending through the reconciliation process, just as they recklessly cut taxes? THEY TRIED AND ALSO MESSED UP. ARE YOU HARD OF 'READING', YES THEY SPENT TOO MUCH, NOT AS MUCH AS THE DEMOCRATS IN FACT AS PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES PROVE, NO WHERE NEAR, BUT TOO MUCH.
Why did the GOP kick Pay/Go to the curb? ARE YOU NOT LISTENING? WE ARE NOT SAYING JUST CUT TAXES, WE ARE SAYING CUT SPENDING. THE DEMOCRATS HAVE NO HISTORY OR INTENTION OF DOING SO AND IN FACT HAVE BANKRUPTED THIS COUNTRY WITH THIS HUGE 'O' BUDGET.
Why add prescription coverage entitlement without adding the revenue to pay for it? THE IDEA WAS TO PREVENT CHRONIC, MORE EXPENSIVE ILLNESSES. IT WAS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE HUGE SPENDING AND HUGE TAXING DEMOCRATS.
How long should it take to balance the budget? Don't cop out - what is your estimate? How long should it take someone who inherits a collapsed economy with a $1.3 deficit? YOU MEAN THE CLINTON RECESSION? 9/11, DOT.COM BUST? WHEN TAXES WERE CUT AND THE ECONOMY RECOVERED BUT THE MEDIA REFUSED TO COVER IT AND THE LEFT DEMAGOGUE IT? THAT ONE?
IT IS A JOKE TO THINK WE CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE WITH ANY CONFIDENCE. WE CAN ONLY PREPARE. HOW LONG? WELL IF A NUCLEAR BOMB GOES OFF IN NY IT WILL TAKE A LOT LONGER. IF AFGHANISTAN SETTLES DOWN, SHORTER. IF THE JUST IN TIME PRODUCTION LINES CONTINUE TO FUNCTION AS THEY ARE, PERHAPS THE PAIN WILL BE SHORT LIVED.
YOU, ME , WE, HAVE NO IDEA.
WHAT WE DO NEED TO IS ESTABLISH A LOW TAX, PRO BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT AND CUT SPENDING! WHICH WILL ADDRESS OUR CURRENT ISSUES AND MAKE US READY FOR THE FUTURE.
How come our two supply side presidents enacted tax cuts which were followed by massive deficits? By the way - they were record deficits measured in nominal dollars or as a percentage of GDP. Why did that happen to them and to no one else in our lifetime?
BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS DEMAGOGUE ANY MEANINGFUL SPENDING REDUCTIONS, BECAUSE RONNIE WON THE COLD WAR, BECAUSE OF THE ABOVE INSULTS TO THE SECOND BUSH PRESIDENCY. BECAUSE, THINGS CHANGE AND YOU CANNOT MANAGE AN COMPLEX ECONOMY.
I know the truth hurts, Doc. You can't solve your problem if you won't admit you have it. It is time to face up to the GOP legacy.
THE GOP IS WAKING UP. M. STEELE ENDED THE 'O' HONEYMOON TODAY.
PRO BUSINESS, LOW TAXES, REDUCED SPENDING, FREEDOM, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
WE ARE BACK
Thanks – now, time for school:
NOW I KNOW YOU READ A LOT OF PAPERS AND KNOW THAT THE SENATE DEMOCRATS BLOCKED A LOT OF REFORMS...THEY TRIED. I don’t remember ANY spending filibusters. I think you believe your own answer, but it is utterly untrue and you cannot site one example.
Why didn't GOP reduce spending through reconciliation? THEY TRIED AND ALSO MESSED UP. ARE YOU HARD OF 'READING', YES THEY SPENT TOO MUCH, NOT AS MUCH AS THE DEMOCRATS IN FACT AS PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES PROVE, NO WHERE NEAR, BUT TOO MUCH. They did not try and they had their chance for six years. Keep that in mind the next time I dismiss their rhetoric.
Why did the GOP kick Pay/Go to the curb? ARE YOU NOT LISTENING? WE ARE NOT SAYING JUST CUT TAXES, WE ARE SAYING CUT SPENDING. THE DEMOCRATS HAVE NO HISTORY OR INTENTION OF DOING SO AND IN FACT HAVE BANKRUPTED THIS COUNTRY WITH THIS HUGE 'O' BUDGET. Pay/Go was a crucial component of the surplus. Dubya’s Dad – Bush I insisted on it when the Dems were requiring tax increases in 1991. Why would any responsible party, inheriting a surplus, drop the Pay-As-You-Go policy!? Utterly reckless and deficits followed. Surprise, surprise.
Prescription coverage? THE IDEA WAS TO PREVENT CHRONIC, MORE EXPENSIVE ILLNESSES. IT WAS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE HUGE SPENDING AND HUGE TAXING DEMOCRATS. It was scored to cost over $500B in the first ten years. Any responsible administration and Congress would have found a way to pay for it – just as Pay/Go would have required.
How long should it take to balance the budget? YOU MEAN THE CLINTON RECESSION? 9/11, DOT.COM BUST? WHEN TAXES WERE CUT AND THE ECONOMY RECOVERED BUT THE MEDIA REFUSED TO COVER IT AND THE LEFT DEMAGOGUE IT? THAT ONE? The “Clinton Recession” was a business cycle recession and no one was blaming Clinton, Rubinomics or surpluses for the recession. Dot com bust – so what? Clinton had the Asian contagion and Mexican collapse and bail out. The economy did recover under Bush and it was little or no thanks to the tax cuts for the rich. Such cuts are not particularly stimulative – they are good for creating investment capital – something in which we were already awash. In fact, they contributed to the real estate boom – lots of investment dollars have to go somewhere, why not real estate? Finally – big deficits are not sustainable, while surpluses are.
IT IS A JOKE TO THINK WE CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE WITH ANY CONFIDENCE. WE CAN ONLY PREPARE. HOW LONG? WELL IF A NUCLEAR BOMB GOES OFF IN NY IT WILL TAKE A LOT LONGER. IF AFGHANISTAN SETTLES DOWN, SHORTER. IF THE JUST IN TIME PRODUCTION LINES CONTINUE TO FUNCTION AS THEY ARE, PERHAPS THE PAIN WILL BE SHORT LIVED. This fatalistic, know-nothing approach is unworthy of someone with a post-grad degree. Any business and certainly the government needs an economic game plan. “FAIL to PLAN means PLAN to FAIL.” Moore + Laffer would agree with me. There will always be variance from plan and surprises. The plan can be adjusted accordingly on a regular basis. That is what Clinton Administration did with 1993 Budget Bill. You remember – just before the surpluses.
YOU, ME , WE, HAVE NO IDEA. – You are half right.
How come our two supply side presidents enacted tax cuts which were followed by massive deficits? By the way - they were record deficits measured in nominal dollars or as a percentage of GDP. Why did that happen to them and to no one else in our lifetime? BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS DEMAGOGUE ANY MEANINGFUL SPENDING REDUCTIONS, BECAUSE RONNIE WON THE COLD WAR, BECAUSE OF THE ABOVE INSULTS TO THE SECOND BUSH PRESIDENCY. BECAUSE, THINGS CHANGE AND YOU CANNOT MANAGE AN COMPLEX ECONOMY. Republicans cannot manage a complex a complex economy. The Dems can handle it just fine – ask Clinton and Rubin. Soon, you can ask Obama + Geithner. Supply siders have massive deficits because their tax cuts do not provide enough revenue. We have done it twice and failed miserably. “Insanity means doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.” You didn’t say why non-supply-siders had not suffered the same fate. Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter did not have massive deficits akin to Dubya and Reagan. Bush I, recognizing the errors of Voodo Economics, reduced the bleeding and Clinton brought us a surplus. Only two had massive deficits – the supply-siders. Try to learn from experience. Geez Louise.
You are of course talking about the peace time surpluses?
You be quite the revisionist, yes I remember MSMBC.
Tax cuts are stimulative. Letting people keep their money stimultates the enconomy, as does capital. Your side just hid behind the "jobless recovery" mantra.
If Reagan or Dubya had been able to bring in the revenue as a percentage of GDP that Clinton did, neither would have had deficits. It all relates to the tax STRUCTURE. Supply-siders give us STRUCTURAL DEFICITS as has been clearly evidenced in the past 28 years, including very recently.
Both engaged in what Sean Hannity now calls "generational theft." If they only had the stones and smarts to enact an appropriate tax structure, we would not have $10T of debt.
Tax cuts are stimulative. So is federal spending. Neither is good in the long term if we can't afford it. We need to align revenues with expenditures and plan how to pay down the massive GOP debt in a timely manner.
Doncha just hate all the planning and execution that will go into such an activity? It is called MANAGING and TAKING RESPONSIBILITY!
Post a Comment