of course. I am now and always have been a pragmatist. get your dem buddies in dc to stop stonewalling to prevent trump from having a “victory” and we can get some compromise.
2 Likes
Jezcoe
274
Which piece of legislation passed by the fully controlled GOP congress increased spending by nearly $500 billion?
JayJay
275
Still not understanding how to properly baseline, I see.
1 Like
Which one was this? Seriously asking. 
Jezcoe
277
This question was in response to the the tax cuts not being responsible for the wildly increasing deficit.
I was wondering was there specific spending bill that spent an additional 500 billion on something?
Omnibus bill? Defense? Homeland Security stuff?
Republicans used to claim they were for fiscal responsibility…but they rarely behaved this way.
Democrats typically wanted more spending and increased taxes. Now, neither side gives a hoot.
Rodeo
279
That’s the bottom line. Didn’t Rosenstein give a speech a couple of years ago where he said whatever meddling might have been going on was just to try to create chaos. There were some foreign actors quietly doing social media stuff promoting candidates from both sides just to harm the confidence of the American people in our elections.
Now I ask you…who has done the bidding of those foreign actors more completely than the Democrats who’ve been trashing the 2016 elections on the taxpayers dime ever since Trump won.
2 Likes
The GOP has never had full control of both houses.
Filibuster.
All legislation therefore requires input from and capitulation to democrats in order to pass.
1 Like
Baseline budgeting simply ensures it always grows.
Revenues increased following the tax cuts, that’s not even arguable.
What can’t be accurately accounted for is what the economy would have done absent them and the subsequent impact on revenues that would follow.
As did deficits… so what does that mean?
Why do I have to keep repeating myself? Because we failed to control spending.
We’ve never had a revenue problem, we’ve always had a spending problem.
1 Like
JimmyC
284
It means that the tax cuts did not pay for themselves.
Lol… they had their chance and never took it…
They never had full control of both houses. Period.
1 Like
Crowdstrike likes to lie!
You may be surprised to learn that intelligence firms frequently revise estimates. That does not convey a desire to lie. When I was doing classified analysis work there was a constant tension between your funders wanting answers and your experience telling you to take more time to gather and assess data.
Are you willing to concede your earlier error that claimed Crowdstrike was a Ukrainian company, when in fat it is based in California.
JayJay
290
Yes it can be accurately modeled what would have happened had the tax cuts not happened.
That’s the essential element in baselining!
When we do this, assuming even the most modest of growth, we find tax revenues in the first year would have grown up about $200 billion or so MORE than they grew under the tax cuts…which, interestingly enough, corresponded almost exactly to the deficit increase in the first year of the tax cuts.
People always try to point to tax revenues growing to show that “tax cuts pay for themselves”.
But tax revenues almost always go up as long as the economy grows enough, so repeatedly stating “tax revenues went up! Therefore the tax cuts worked!” just makes one look foolish.
Now that this has been repeated for at least the tenth time, I’m sure it will be ignored once again…
They had both houses and couldnt do anything.
