How are we going to pay for all this shit?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Tiny

I don't understand how our friend WTF can be aware of things like this and still want to feed the beast. The power of the purse should be closest to the people. You're not going to see Floridians or Iowans voting to spend their own tax money to buy hotels and ski areas. If we'd raised and spent money at the local and state level for pandemic relief instead of relying on the Feds, we would have seen a lot less fraud.

The reason the Beast has become so large is because Fonnie Reagan unleashed upon his worshippers that debt does not matter as long as the cause is worthy!

I think we've already established when the debt to GDP was spiked!

So WTF thinks that if in fact say Reagan had raised taxes to pay for his Cold War military spending or Bush jr had increased taxes to pay for the Iraq War....the opposition may have been heartier as to just how much we really wanted these things!

You never seem to have a problem with Republicans feeding the Beast!

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by WTF

The reason the Beast has become so large is because Fonnie Reagan unleashed upon his worshippers that debt does not matter as long as the cause is worthy!

I think we've already established when the debt to GDP was spiked!

So WTF thinks that if in fact say Reagan had raised taxes to pay for his Cold War military spending or Bush jr had increased taxes to pay for the Iraq War....the opposition may have been heartier as to just how much we really wanted these things!

You never seem to have a problem with Republicans feeding the Beast!

you've established it no one else is buying it. Reagan cut taxes due to Carter's recession. are you saying Reagan should have increased taxes during a recession?


good luck getting anyone other than the idiot twins Robert Reich and Paul Krugman to back you up on that.


Krugman has stated you can spend your way out of a recession. i'm sure you do not agree with that?

[WTF]

Reagan should have raised them once we were out of the recession but he left the Realpolitik to Bush.

You're an example of Reagan fucking up a whole generation of numbnuts who embrace Keynesianism in recessions and revert to Voodoo economics

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by WTF

Reagan should have raised them once we were out of the recession but he left the Realpolitik to Bush.

You're an example of Reagan fucking up a whole generation of numbnuts who embrace Keynesianism in recessions and revert to Voodoo economics

Bushy I did raise taxes. didn't work out so well for his chances at a second term.


i've never said i embrace any such thing. that's just your standard excuse to claim so.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by WTF

Don't blame to debt on progressive...you Reagan lovers are bad if not worse at piling it up

Originally Posted by WTF

Reagan should have raised them once we were out of the recession but he left the Realpolitik to Bush.

You're an example of Reagan fucking up a whole generation of numbnuts who embrace Keynesianism in recessions and revert to Voodoo economics

How many Republicans voted for the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan? How many Republicans, compared to Democrats, voted for the infrastructure bill? How many Republicans would have voted for the Build Back Better bill?

McConnell and some other Republicans tried to control the spending in 2020, but weren't able to do much with Pelosi and Trump chomping at the bit to throw gasoline on the fire.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Tiny

How many Republicans voted for the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan? How many Republicans, compared to Democrats, voted for the infrastructure bill? How many Republicans would have voted for the Build Back Better bill?

McConnell and some other Republicans tried to slow down the spending in 2020, but weren't able to do much with Pelosi and Trump chomping at the bit to throw gasoline on the fire.

Is that really what you're hanging you hat on?????

Democrats always want to spend.

Republicans only want to spend when there is a Republican in the WH.

I've told you forever what the best combo is.....it ain't a Republican in the WH.

Hell the country kicked Bush out of office for trying to budget responsibly!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Bushy I did raise taxes. didn't work out so well for his chances at a second term.

Exactly, you silly fics turned on him!

For being fiscally responsible!

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by WTF

Exactly, you silly fics turned on him!

For being fiscally responsible!

i voted for Ross Perot and you know why. his campaign was mainly based on one thing the Fed Debt. what Bushy I did was not going to do a damn thing about the debt, at best it might but probably not hold it steady.


Perot had a plan to reduce it. of course it would have required stopping all this pork barrel spending and the leftist howler monkeys would have opposed that and tried to save all their bullshit social entitlements.


Perot, like Trump had he won in 1992 would have found out being a CEO is not quite the same as being President. as CEO's Perot and Trump were used to walking into a meeting of senior executives and saying "This is what we are going to do, git er done!".


funny you never mention that Reagan wanted a line item veto on the budget. did you sleep in that day? you know why he wanted it professor poofter, to do what Congress refused .. eliminate all the excess bullshit Congress keeps putting into the budget.

[texassapper]

The problem with this thread is that there is a fundamental mistake being made in the assumptions about what is happening. The goal is NOT to be able o pay back the debt. It's just the opposite to take control of the nation, a crisis must be induced that causes citizens to allow the rights to chipped away at. Bankrupting the nation allows the autocrats to seize control of the levers of power more strongly than they already have. Once we move to eCurrency, if you make the wrong post, you will be considered a threat and for the safety of your neighbors, your banking will be turned off, your ability to work etc... everything will hinge on being compliant to the administration. You didn't think that our Tech companies built this shit for China and don't plan on using it here do you?

The sheep think it won't be that bad... and at first it won't be. I hope you enjoy creating what your children will be expected to live with.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

i voted for Ross Perot and you know why. his campaign was mainly based on one thing the Fed Debt. what Bushy I did was not going to do a damn thing about the debt, at best it might but probably not hold it steady.


Perot had a plan to reduce it. of course it would have required stopping all this pork barrel spending and the leftist howler monkeys would have opposed that and tried to save all their bullshit social entitlements.


Perot, like Trump had he won in 1992 would have found out being a CEO is not quite the same as being President. as CEO's Perot and Trump were used to walking into a meeting of senior executives and saying "This is what we are going to do, git er done!".


funny you never mention that Reagan wanted a line item veto on the budget. did you sleep in that day? you know why he wanted it professor poofter, to do what Congress refused .. eliminate all the excess bullshit Congress keeps putting into the budget.

Every President wants a line item veto!

Bush, Clinton and Perot are all looking good right now compared to Trump and Biden.


You think Perot would have been able to reduce spending? He'd probably been as successful as Trump!


You rejection of Bush and his responsible tax increases led to more and more tax cuts. Iraq war...cut taxes. Financial Crisis....cut taxes. Covid....cut taxes.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by WTF

Every President wants a line item veto!

Bush, Clinton and Perot are all looking good right now compared to Trump and Biden.


You think Perot would have been able to reduce spending? He'd probably been as successful as Trump!


You rejection of Bush and his responsible tax increases led to more and more tax cuts. Iraq war...cut taxes. Financial Crisis....cut taxes. Covid....cut taxes.

who says i rejected it? i said it didn't go over well with the public. i'm sure you recall his "Read my lips .. no new taxes!" statement?

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

And just to show that I'm a truly "bipartisan" sort of guy, here's a question I've occasionally asked my conservative and libertarian friends:

"Do you remember when Jimmy Carter took aggressive action against the Soviet Union during the Cold War?"

Yes, seriously. That usually elicited a facial expression that said, "Huh?? What??" (But after my explanation, and tracing ensuing developments over the next five years or so, they agreed agreed with me!).

WTF, I sincerely regret being hard on you from time to time. You're recovering from Stockholm Syndrome, and you need all the help and support you can get. And instead I'm piling on.

Well, I'm here to make amends. Perhaps you'd like a crack at the question above. And just maybe we can get the good Captain to provide his take, which undoubtedly will shed a favorable light on one of your favorite Presidents.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WTF

I think we've already established when my next meltdown is due!

We did? Could someone please tip me off so I can make sure I'm here for it?

Thanks in advance!

[Tiny]

The nonpartisan Tax Foundation is a little right of center, but respected by Congressmen on both sides of the aisle. Their take on the proposed Biden budget, which assumes the Build Back Better act will become law, is here:

https://taxfoundation.org/biden-budget-tax/

A few choice excerpts in italics,

" Our analysis, like that of the Congressional Budget Office, indicates BBBA as passed by the House is not deficit neutral, but rather would increase deficits by more than $800 billion over the next decade. Furthermore, because the bill proposes several tax increases that raise marginal tax rates on individual and corporate income, we find it would reduce the size of the economy over the long run by 0.5 percent and eliminate 125,000 jobs."

"The FY 2023 budget proposes several new tax increases on high-income individuals and businesses, which in combination with the BBBA would give the U.S. the highest top tax rates on individual and corporate income in the developed world."

As to the public infrastructure and industrial policy programs included in the Biden Budget,

"Our analysis, like that of the Congressional Budget Office, indicates public infrastructure programs paid for with higher income taxes results in reduced economic growth. Regarding the industrial policy programs, the track record does not indicate they would substantially boost economic growth, especially when paired with growth-damaging tax increases. Improving education and childcare are certainly worthwhile goals, but merely spending more money does not equate to improvements or economic growth. Does the administration have any cost/benefit analysis to indicate these programs are worthwhile expenditures of taxpayer money, especially at a time when the administration expects the national debt will increase by more than $14 trillion over the next 10 years under their proposals?"

The answer to that question is no.

"In short, our preliminary review of the FY 2023 budget indicates there is little reason to think it will boost economic growth or result in sound fiscal policy. At a time when the Federal Reserve is raising interest rates to combat the highest inflation this country has seen in 40 years, which will slow the economy by raising borrowing costs, we should expect a more serious budgetary effort that recognizes the very real economic challenges that lie ahead."

[Texas Contrarian]

Okay ... just getting caught up with stuff in this forum and didn't want to forget Tiny's offer to let WTF put in a good word for Jimmy!

To wit:

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

And just to show that I'm a truly "bipartisan" sort of guy, here's a question I've occasionally asked my conservative and libertarian friends:

"Do you remember when Jimmy Carter took aggressive action against the Soviet Union during the Cold War?"

Yes, seriously. That usually elicited a facial expression that said, "Huh?? What??" (But after my explanation, and tracing ensuing developments over the next five years or so, they agreed agreed with me!)

Originally Posted by Tiny

WTF, I sincerely regret being hard on you from time to time. You're recovering from Stockholm Syndrome, and you need all the help and support you can get. And instead I'm piling on.

Well, I'm here to make amends. Perhaps you'd like a crack at the question above. And just maybe we can get the good Captain to provide his take, which undoubtedly will shed a favorable light on one of your favorite Presidents.

A few weeks went by and I had forgotten about this ... but WTF did take a stab at answering my question!

Originally Posted by WTF

Answer...He drew the Soviets into their own Vietnam.

So go ahead Captain, correct me if I'm wrong!

Actually, that's not what I was thinking of, but I don't think it's wrong!

Brief explanation:

Within the last few years, two friends of mine (both excellent students of the Cold War, I believe) said pretty much the same thing.

About 6 months before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, Carter's national security advisor (Zbig) began working with the CIA to aid the Mujahideen, reportedly saying at the time that although this would not necessarily bait the Soviets into attacking, it certainly would materially increase the probability that they would do so.

I don't know enough about the foreign policy implications of all this to know whether WTF's answer is the best answer, but think it certainly may be a good one, and possibly even the best one. What I had in mind, though, was something of a purely economic nature.

Did Carter make a tough choice to reverse an utterly disastrous decision he had made in the previous year? (G. William Miller.)

Jimmy must have realized that such a tough choice would have been likely to tank his re-election prospects.

Why might this action have been construed as bad news for the Soviet Union?

.