Comments by "eatmorenachos" (@eatmorenachos) on "Dems Flip Out At Obama For Budget Deal" video.

@2010GOP two years, so they're responsible for the whole eight? Republican economists said tax cuts reduce revenue. Do you agree with that or not?
1
@genie0390 Clinton inherited an anemic economy---remember his line "it's the economy stupid" when Bush I was in office? If the economy was booming during Clinton vs Bush I election, then Bush I probably would've been re-elected. GW inherited a surplus and nearly doubled the debt----he did not "inherit" a housing mess or 9/11, both of them happened on his watch.
1
@2010GOP “After Reagan’s election, Congress passed the cut in taxes that Reagan advocated, but the tax cut did not cause revenue to rise. Instead, tax revenues fell, as most economists predicted it would, and the U.S. federal government began a long period of deficit spending, leading to the largest peacetime increase in the government debt in U.S. history.” Greg Mankiw, Chairman of George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors and Harvard economics professor
1
@2010GOP Thanks for proving you ignore reality and substitute your own. These are actual quotes from Republican economists, yet they present a view you can't bear to hear so you respond with an ad hominum attack because you have nothing to counter it.
1
@2010GOP It's easy to tell when you get stuck and can't counter what I've posted, you resort to name calling. The prescription drug plan bans the government from negotiating drug prices and is a major expense. It cannot "pay for itself" because there's no revenue---only expense. Most of the funding for Iraq and Afghanistan was kept off the books in supplemental "emergency" spending so Bush could pretend it didn't impact the debt. Obama changed that, which makes debt look bigger.
1
@2010GOP It wasn't "Nancy & company" who initiated two unfunded wars, a Medicare prescription drug boondoggle, bank bailouts & tax cuts for the rich. Look, we've had taxes as high as 90 percent and for a long time they were 70 percent (I'm not calling for those levels, by the way) but the economy still grew. If you compare tax increases and cuts to economic growth the reality is there's no link to prove changes have much impact either way. Bush's team said cuts increase debt, that's a fact.
1
@2010GOP and your response has WHAT to do with the fact that tax cuts don't pay for themselves and add to the debt? Have a red herring and try again.
1
@2010GOP There you go again, the most bitter man in the room. Nobody said the cuts were bad for the economy, just for the debt because (as the Bush team said) it reduces revenue. Obama spent money on the two wars and the economic mess that he inherited from Bush, and the economic downturn also reduced revenue and added to the debt. Bush's cuts, wars, etc added more to the debt than anything Obama has done. You should really get an EKG sometime, all that anger is bad for your health.
1
@2010GOP Well, maybe not. You've offered nothing to counter statements by these top Republican economists. It seems you can't argue without name calling either.
1
@2010GOP Clinton was against something----that he SIGNED? What planet do you live on? Bush inherited a surplus, turned it into a debt and still had the worst record on job creation since Hoover---a mere 8 million in eight years.
1
@2010GOP ....and what did Bush do after that? He increased the debt with tax cuts for the rich and two unfunded wars. Bush's own economic advisers said tax cuts do not pay for themselves. Bush said we could afford the cuts and that they would keep the economy strong---and he was wrong on both counts.
1
@genie0390 Why hasn't someone told you that it was a "right wing perspective" that got us into this mess. Reagan tripled the debt, "W" inherited a surplus, turned it into negative and nearly doubled the debt---along with the worst record on job creation since Herbert Hoover.
1
@2010GOP “The first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.” Andrew Samwick, Chief Economist on Staff of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, 2003-2004
1
@2010GOP "ass-tard?" My what an erudite response. I guess on your planet, legislation doesn't have to be signed by a president? Gingrich and Clinton imposed "pay as you go" rules that paid down the debt---which "W" eliminated, then cut taxes for the rich at a time of two unfunded wars. Bush inherited a surplus, turned it into a massive debt and the economy was bleeding jobs. Things have stabilized under Obama, but Bush had the worst record on jobs since the 1920s and that is a fact.
1
@2010GOP “Although the economy grows in response to tax reductions (because of the higher consumption in the short run and improved incentives in the long run) it is unlikely to grow so much that lost revenue is completely recovered by the higher level of economic activity.” President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors, 2003 Economic Report of the President
1