So if Pubs play the rules does that mean the Dems don't?

Wufskins said:

---

So if Pubs play the rules does that mean the Dems don't?

---

What are the rules? When I say rules, I don't necessarily mean the written rules. What I mean is that they play smash mouth politics. I wish the Reps would play by the same antics (rules) as the Dems do. Dems are very good and effective…

Werewolf said:

---

RINOs are well compensated....to lose the WWF main bouts.....a slippery well concealed path to what we face today.....

---

Sorry but the ultra far right isn't winning much these days either now are they? The continued infighting within the GOP is only going to allow the left to continue to win. But sometimes I wonder if this is what some on right want? Easy to play the victim card when down.

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

So if Pubs play the rules does that mean the Dems don't?

---

What are the rules? When I say rules, I don't necessarily mean the written rules. What I mean is that they play smash mouth politics. I wish the Reps would play by the same antics (rules) as the Dems do. Dems are very good and effective…

---

Democrats do seem a lot more organized and effective.

Well to your 2017 example, I'd say they played smash mouth politics by going to bat for big corporations and the top 2%ers with their tax cuts that never were paid for (except by our children).

Wufskins said:

---

Well to your 2017 example, I'd say they played smash mouth politics by going to bat for big corporations and the top 2%ers with their tax cuts that never were paid for (except by our children).

---

You know, that is a mis-representation of the results…. Tax cuts always bring in more revenues. This narrative, by liberals, is so untrue. We are trying to pass a 7T dollar budget. You really can't tax enough to pay for this. Now, if you want to tax billionaires at a 75% rate, I say go for it, as they are all Democrats…. Tax the Hell out of them!

Trust me, that will never happen, as the Dems are bought and paid for by those billionaires…

Those benefits are less than Republicans promised, though, and they have come at a high cost to the federal budget. The corporate tax cuts came nowhere close to paying for themselves, as conservatives insisted they would. Instead, they are adding more than $100 billion a year to America's $34 trillion-and-growing national debt, according to the quartet of researchers from Princeton University, the University of Chicago, Harvard University and the Treasury Department.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/04/us/politics/trump-corporate-tax-cut.html#:~:text=The%20most%20detailed%20research%20yet,cost%20to%20the%20federal%20debt.

Wufskins said:

---

Those benefits are less than Republicans promised, though, and they have come at a high cost to the federal budget. The corporate tax cuts came nowhere close to paying for themselves, as conservatives insisted they would. Instead, they are adding more than $100 billion a year to America's $34 trillion-and-growing national debt, according to the quartet of researchers from Princeton University, the University of Chicago, Harvard University and the Treasury Department.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/04/us/politics/trump-corporate-tax-cut.html#:~:text=The%20most%20detailed%20research%20yet,cost%20to%20the%20federal%20debt.

---

Flat out not true…. Please show me where we had a fall-off, from the tax cuts, you are referencing…

FY2015 - 3.25T
FY2016 - 3.27T
FY2017 - 3.32T
FY2018 - 3.33T
FY2019 - 3.46T
FY2020 - 3.42T (Covid Year)
FY2021 - 4.05T
FY2022 - ??

why the debate...? We're much better of these last 3.5 years! #eyesroll

Wufskins said:

---

Trump racked up record annual deficits but I guess we only care about the deficit when a Democrat is in the White House.

---

Not true at all…. I don't like deficits with anyone in power. That said, the article you posted was a narrative that most buy into. Explain why we had growing revenues…

The fact is, revenues always run fairly consistent, as a percent of GDP. The problem is, we spend too much, anyway you look at it…

It's not a narrative. Its conclusions from a study of experts.

Wufskins said:

---

It's not a narrative. Its conclusions from a study of experts.

---

Ok, believe what you want. I see you didn't editorialize on the revenues, I showed…. Not a convenient set of numbers…

BTW, remember when I said you run from the debate. Are you doing that right now? You're quoting a NY Times article, based on opinions. Mine is just raw numbers…

I posted a NYT article covering the study that four experts did on the 2017 tax cuts bill. Would a yahoo article change your mind about the findings of the study?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-tax-cut-fueled-investment-183319016.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAENXK7GXsp1wlaTgisY3Gq-QhESp7BqEewooXT_kzozt5mEP1xGfnuN_CisPjwWPTJd1N8c3YkIpAGzwAakpZ3DtbHx1G-peS7nwQ0ChHvzXtvj4_MbkaXBj8C2fkbuoAf5JrGZGwP4fiy3vmrzLmVWCsd-BjfGnMT5Nv72p92Jy

Wufskins said:

---

I posted a NYT article covering the study that four experts did on the 2017 tax cuts bill. Would a yahoo article change your mind about the findings of the study?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-tax-cut-fueled-investment-183319016.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAENXK7GXsp1wlaTgisY3Gq-QhESp7BqEewooXT_kzozt5mEP1xGfnuN_CisPjwWPTJd1N8c3YkIpAGzwAakpZ3DtbHx1G-peS7nwQ0ChHvzXtvj4_MbkaXBj8C2fkbuoAf5JrGZGwP4fiy3vmrzLmVWCsd-BjfGnMT5Nv72p92Jy

---

No! Because I posted raw numbers on the reality. Articles, like those, are conjecture and opinion. The reality is the revenue, received by the Treasury Department.

You keep saying that I claimed we had a falloff in revenue. I never make that claim. I said Pubs promised the tax cuts would pay for themselves. They clearly didn't and contributed massively to our deficit. The study showed that. It's not a narrative. It's a fact.

Would you prefer to hear from the traditionally conservative Forbes?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/christianweller/2020/01/29/trumps-wasteful-tax-cuts-lead-to-continued-trillion-dollar-deficits-in-expanding-economy/?sh=6788f5a866c4

Evidently "narrative" is the new buzzword when you want to trivialize or dismiss significant events or situations that actually happened.

Let me try.

It's unfortunate for Dems that the southern border narrative is negatively impacting Biden at the polls. It's actually no big deal, fully under control!

Wufskins said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Evidently "narrative" is the new buzzword when you want to trivialize or dismiss significant events or situations that actually happened.

Let me try.

It's unfortunate for Dems that the southern border narrative is negatively impacting Biden at the polls. It's actually no big deal, fully under control!

---

Good one! Here's a narrative- trickle down economics doesn't work.

---

But you are all in on SOCIALISM and MARXISM right clown boy?

Wufskins said:

---

You keep saying that I claimed we had a falloff in revenue. I never make that claim. I said Pubs promised the tax cuts would pay for themselves. They clearly didn't and contributed massively to our deficit. The study showed that. It's not a narrative. It's a fact.

Would you prefer to hear from the traditionally conservative Forbes?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/christianweller/2020/01/29/trumps-wasteful-tax-cuts-lead-to-continued-trillion-dollar-deficits-in-expanding-economy/?sh=6788f5a866c4

---

How can a continued increase in revenues contribute to more deficits? Only if you plan on spending more money!

See, that's a spending problem!!! BTW, we ran a 2.5T deficit this past fiscal year. Projected to be 2.5T again this year. That's not a spending problem, is it?

Civilized said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

Show a post on here where I have advocated for any type of socialism or Marxist program. You can't, because I don't. Just throw out those buzz words without any evidence. It's all you have.
Now, would you like to discuss the topic or just throw out childish bull*****

---

The latter. It's always the latter.

---

The budget is full of them! If you support the spending, then you support socialism.

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

Show a post on here where I have advocated for any type of socialism or Marxist program. You can't, because I don't. Just throw out those buzz words without any evidence. It's all you have.
Now, would you like to discuss the topic or just throw out childish bull*****

---

The latter. It's always the latter.

---

The budget is full of them! If you support the spending, then you support socialism.

---

The "socialism" and "Marxism" barbs are completely childish and counterproductive. It's just name-calling, no different than the woke left being all too eager to throw out "-ism's".

You can support federal spending without being a socialist.

And anyway, Pubs don't spend consequentially less than Dems, they just support taxing less.

Which is more responsible, "spend and tax" or "spend and don't tax"?

Who was the last President to balance the budget, again?

I tried to warn y'all about him. You'll learn, you'll learn.

Now onto something more interesting that arguing with fools.

Recent poll on who should be Trump's VP
18% DeSantis
17% Haley
15% Scott
15% Vivek
7% Gabbard
6% Noem
6% Sarah Huckabee
3% Rubio
2% Bryon Donaldson
2% Stephanik
1% Youngkin
7% Other

I still favor Reynolds. She's smart, knows how to navigate politics and won't upstage Trump. IOW another Pence type but without the evangelical flavor.

Of that list I would favor Scott. Maybe then Haley can take his spot to further her possibility for 2028. Not that I think McMaster would choose her since he's a Trump guy and would appoint a Trump endorsement. But maybe she could win the special election.

And yeah, despite her war monger tendencies, I like her otherwise.

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

Show a post on here where I have advocated for any type of socialism or Marxist program. You can't, because I don't. Just throw out those buzz words without any evidence. It's all you have.
Now, would you like to discuss the topic or just throw out childish bull*****

---

The latter. It's always the latter.

---

The budget is full of them! If you support the spending, then you support socialism.

---

The "socialism" and "Marxism" barbs are completely childish and counterproductive. It's just name-calling, no different than the woke left being all too eager to throw out "-ism's".

You can support federal spending without being a socialist.

And anyway, Pubs don't spend consequentially less than Dems, they just support taxing less.

Which is more responsible, "spend and tax" or "spend and don't tax"?

Who was the last President to balance the budget, again?

---

Clinton! Now let's look into the detail… it took a Trump supporting Dick Morris as Chief of Staff, along with Newt and team to get that balanced budget, right?

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

Show a post on here where I have advocated for any type of socialism or Marxist program. You can't, because I don't. Just throw out those buzz words without any evidence. It's all you have.
Now, would you like to discuss the topic or just throw out childish bull*****

---

The latter. It's always the latter.

---

The budget is full of them! If you support the spending, then you support socialism.

---

The "socialism" and "Marxism" barbs are completely childish and counterproductive. It's just name-calling, no different than the woke left being all too eager to throw out "-ism's".

You can support federal spending without being a socialist.

And anyway, Pubs don't spend consequentially less than Dems, they just support taxing less.

Which is more responsible, "spend and tax" or "spend and don't tax"?

Who was the last President to balance the budget, again?

---

Your choice of spend and tax or spend and don't tax is part of the problem and illicit's the socialism tag.

I think things, like the COVID relief stuff, done under Trump is pure Socialism! Somebody, earlier asked what policy(s) I didn't like of Trumps, wel … that was a huge one!

barelypure said:

---

I tried to warn y'all about him. You'll learn, you'll learn.

Now onto something more interesting that arguing with fools.

Recent poll on who should be Trump's VP
18% DeSantis
17% Haley
15% Scott
15% Vivek
7% Gabbard
6% Noem
6% Sarah Huckabee
3% Rubio
2% Bryon Donaldson
2% Stephanik
1% Youngkin
7% Other

I still favor Reynolds. She's smart, knows how to navigate politics and won't upstage Trump. IOW another Pence type but without the evangelical flavor.

Of that list I would favor Scott. Maybe then Haley can take his spot to further her possibility for 2028. Not that I think McMaster would choose her since he's a Trump guy and would appoint a Trump endorsement. But maybe she could win the special election.

And yeah, despite her war monger tendencies, I like her otherwise.

---

I'll be fascinated to see who he chooses.

No way in hell at this point that it's Haley.

I always admired the job that Sanders did as his mouthpiece, that is a tough hand to be dealt to try to normalize his crazy outbursts and tweets and actions, and she always was both imminently professional, and frankly did a good job as anyone could possibly do at it.

I think he actually likes her a lot, I just don't see her resuming a second fiddle position in his administration when she's top dog and running her own show. She doesn't need to put up with the crazy anymore, if she has sights set on making a run in 28 or sometime thereafter, she's got all the pedigree she needs at this point.

I wish he would choose somebody like Scott or Haley that rounded him out but my guess is he chooses somebody like Vivek that's a mini-me clone of his that kisses his ass. Hopefully his advisors will talk some sense into him in that regard and really try to impress upon him the electoral need to choose someone that broadens the base.

Civilized said:

---

barelypure said:

---

I tried to warn y'all about him. You'll learn, you'll learn.

Now onto something more interesting that arguing with fools.

Recent poll on who should be Trump's VP
18% DeSantis
17% Haley
15% Scott
15% Vivek
7% Gabbard
6% Noem
6% Sarah Huckabee
3% Rubio
2% Bryon Donaldson
2% Stephanik
1% Youngkin
7% Other

I still favor Reynolds. She's smart, knows how to navigate politics and won't upstage Trump. IOW another Pence type but without the evangelical flavor.

Of that list I would favor Scott. Maybe then Haley can take his spot to further her possibility for 2028. Not that I think McMaster would choose her since he's a Trump guy and would appoint a Trump endorsement. But maybe she could win the special election.

And yeah, despite her war monger tendencies, I like her otherwise.

---

I'll be fascinated to see who he chooses.

No way in hell at this point that it's Haley.

I always admired the job that Sanders did as his mouthpiece, that is a tough hand to be dealt to try to normalize his crazy outbursts and tweets and actions, and she always was both imminently professional, and frankly did a good job as anyone could possibly do at it.

I think he actually likes her a lot, I just don't see her resuming a second fiddle position in his administration when she's top dog and running her own show. She doesn't need to put up with the crazy anymore, if she has sights set on making a run in 28 or sometime thereafter, she's got all the pedigree she needs at this point.

I wish he would choose somebody like Scott or Haley that rounded him out but my guess is he chooses somebody like Vivek that's a mini-me clone of his that kisses his ass. Hopefully his advisors will talk some sense into him in that regard and really try to impress upon him the electoral need to choose someone that broadens the base.

---

Civ, in all honesty, would you vote for the Trump ticket you would like to see happen?

I imagine Pinocchio, deadskins, Mr. Keeper (kingpack), Libby Civ and the rest of the comrades are crying in their soy lattes.....

For the last 9 years these people have done nothing but come after President Trump with anything and everything they could make up, falsify, change laws, manipulate the justice system and even have the DOJ weaponized to come after him.

All it has done is make him stronger and show people just how pathetic the left and how sad of a person you are if you vote democrat.

Yes... and anyone on this board that does you are included.

Me watching all the liberals cry today pic.twitter.com/be7B53TcPV

— TONY™ (@TONYxTWO) March 25, 2024

barelypure said:

---

I tried to warn y'all about him. You'll learn, you'll learn.

Now onto something more interesting that arguing with fools.

Recent poll on who should be Trump's VP
18% DeSantis
17% Haley
15% Scott
15% Vivek
7% Gabbard
6% Noem
6% Sarah Huckabee
3% Rubio
2% Bryon Donaldson
2% Stephanik
1% Youngkin
7% Other

I still favor Reynolds. She's smart, knows how to navigate politics and won't upstage Trump. IOW another Pence type but without the evangelical flavor.

Of that list I would favor Scott. Maybe then Haley can take his spot to further her possibility for 2028. Not that I think McMaster would choose her since he's a Trump guy and would appoint a Trump endorsement. But maybe she could win the special election.

And yeah, despite her war monger tendencies, I like her otherwise.

---

I'm also interested to see who Trump picks. He needs a pick who will help him with folks who are hesitant about Trump this go around. Who that person is, I don't know.

The think the bigger question is more who would AGREE to be his vp.

Ncsufist said:

---

The think the bigger question is more who would AGREE to be his vp.

---

Someone will. Lot of folks want the attention. And in my opinion is a problem in today's politics.