General Discussion

HughBeaumont

(24,461 posts)

82. Sorry, I don't "find" things for economic Republicans.

Mon May 2, 2016, 02:45 PM

May 2016

Do your own homework. I ain't your fucking Google.

I can have a bunch of numbers and skew them any way I please. Doesn't make them any more right than those who say we have a Revenue problem rather than a spending problem. People believed Stephen Moore for years. FactCheck.org never rated any of his "lowering taxes brought more revenue" claims as anything above "half true", yet he remained Heritage.org's chief economist for years.

It has nothing to do with "not agreeing". Have you read his writing? Vitriol suited for Glenn Beck, Red Baiting until the cows come home, ad hominems passing for journalism . . . I mean, if you want to trust a guy with such blatant Libertarian boilerplate masking as articulate thought, have at it.

I question the be-all-end-all term "Clearinghouse" from a Sarah Palin supporter. Sorry, but bias is bias.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

105 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

America: We have a REVENUE Problem. Austerity? BULLSHIT. [View all] Triana May 2016 OP

The USA only has one fiscal problem: The lack of political will to tax those who have all the money. Scuba May 2016 #1

Huge +1! Enthusiast May 2016 #23

+1 n/t Triana May 2016 #42

Absolutely. jwirr May 2016 #84

I would add Out-of-Control Military Spending, bvar22 May 2016 #87

Right on! Enthusiast May 2016 #88

Spot Fucking On! Phlem May 2016 #93

We have a spending problem. Kang Colby May 2016 #2

What does your candidate propose cutting, then? Scootaloo May 2016 #4

Sorry, this isn't GD:P. N/t Kang Colby May 2016 #6

Nope, it's not. I'm asking what our apparent nominee proposes cutting from the budget Scootaloo May 2016 #8

proposing to cut the obvious fat (the military) is political suicide maxsolomon May 2016 #89

I've noticed your posts a lot since I joined DU a few years back Victor_c3 May 2016 #104

So basically you have nothing. Phlem May 2016 #94

If you're interested...see my other posts in this thread. n/t Kang Colby May 2016 #98

Unfortunately I have. Phlem May 2016 #99

Why not ask another question? watoos May 2016 #7

Our population doubled, but our inflation adjusted tax revenues sextupled (6x). Kang Colby May 2016 #9

Sorry, but your revenue figures are a % of GDP watoos May 2016 #13

No, I purposefully did not use GDP percentage. I just used the nominal values adjusted for inflation Kang Colby May 2016 #17

Don't waste your time. Indydem May 2016 #63

Yes, we tax them so much! Poor things. truebluegreen May 2016 #70

Other nations have deductions also. Indydem May 2016 #77

Fine with me. But the issue under discussion truebluegreen May 2016 #79

Wow! A Republican meme promoted on DU. We need to get spending under control! Enthusiast May 2016 #16

"New Democrats" KPN May 2016 #86

If true, most of it spent on DEFENSE and DHS. Triana May 2016 #44

I agree with you on Defense spending. Kang Colby May 2016 #45

Outstanding post, FoxNewsSucks May 2016 #78

Yeah, all that money wasted on food for the poor. Jackie Wilson Said May 2016 #51

Have you seen the defense budget? n/t Kang Colby May 2016 #52

Yes, but unless you can cut it, then talking about cutting will mean those most in need. Jackie Wilson Said May 2016 #53

Not necessarily. n/t Kang Colby May 2016 #54

Yes, necessarily. truebluegreen May 2016 #72

Let's start with the MIC. -nt CrispyQ May 2016 #80

Agreed. n/t Kang Colby May 2016 #81

It's even worse than that. zeemike May 2016 #47

"...now there are 2 and they still can't keep pace." truebluegreen May 2016 #71

Thanks and that is true. zeemike May 2016 #100

One thing about that... Elmergantry May 2016 #101

And what are we spending on? mindwalker_i May 2016 #10

How about we start with the Pentagon budget? leftofcool May 2016 #15

I agree with that, 100%. n/t Kang Colby May 2016 #22

The right always tries to frame it as, "You are depriving the troops." Enthusiast May 2016 #33

Agreed, there are a lot of programs that help congressional districts mindwalker_i May 2016 #36

In 1950 we were building highways and hospitals and other public things, Now we are LiberalArkie May 2016 #18

Huge +1! Enthusiast May 2016 #21

I agree with that for sure. n/t Kang Colby May 2016 #24

Yup. As Jamie Hynaman would say mindwalker_i May 2016 #37

All excellent points SickOfTheOnePct May 2016 #55

Actually we were. Indydem May 2016 #64

Most of those charts also include Social Security, Medicare, unemployment in the spending LiberalArkie May 2016 #68

Thom Hartmann mentions this. CrispyQ May 2016 #83

Well... Kang Colby May 2016 #20

So individuals are sending in 18 X what they used to pay and corporations have avoided their share. Vincardog May 2016 #11

You can't really compare the tax code in 1950 to what we have in 2016. n/t Kang Colby May 2016 #25

The OP was about tax receipts. Are you saying that it is wrong? Corps. are not paying their share Vincardog May 2016 #27

Yes, I'm saying it's an apples to oranges comparison. Kang Colby May 2016 #32

What "sound public policy" do you propose based on no corporate income tax? Please child. Vincardog May 2016 #34

This is a complicated topic, beyond my willingness to type. Kang Colby May 2016 #43

"Fertile Environment for Business" Indydem May 2016 #65

I know, it's really a shame. Kang Colby May 2016 #75

Typical of Bernie Supporters. Indydem May 2016 #76

huh, you don't say. Phlem May 2016 #92

Sure you can mindwalker_i May 2016 #39

Yes, that is fairly easy. However, I'm talking about the tax code circa 1950 as compared to today. Kang Colby May 2016 #40

See the OP. You are missing the point. Enthusiast May 2016 #19

So Kang cannabis_flower May 2016 #49

Ouch. Read my responses on this thread... Kang Colby May 2016 #50

And prices? JDPriestly May 2016 #58

Good for you. Kang Colby May 2016 #60

REALLY??? HughBeaumont May 2016 #62

Are you denying the facts? Indydem May 2016 #66

WHAT FACTS? HughBeaumont May 2016 #69

The website you are contesting is a clearinghouse for facts. Indydem May 2016 #74

Sorry, I don't "find" things for economic Republicans. HughBeaumont May 2016 #82

Not a single one of those are FACTS. Indydem May 2016 #85

An out of control military spy complex spending problem. Dont call me Shirley May 2016 #91

50 plus years of a militant plutocracy will do that to a democracy. Rex May 2016 #3

Huge +1! Enthusiast May 2016 #14

If the media had picked our voice over the corporations, this would be a different world. Rex May 2016 #29

Those in the media that would like to change will find themselves looking for a job. Enthusiast May 2016 #31

They already do, just look at Donahue and Rather. Rex May 2016 #35

! . . . . .n/t annabanana May 2016 #30

That a YEP! Phlem May 2016 #95

That's it exactly. zentrum May 2016 #5

Kicked and recommended! Very few people are aware of this. Enthusiast May 2016 #12

And once again the Clinton camp spews Republican doctrine Ferd Berfel May 2016 #26

Wait, what? abelenkpe May 2016 #73

We need Austerity but by cutting welfare for the rich egalitegirl May 2016 #28

Rich people get welfare???? NT Elmergantry May 2016 #102

They go by other names egalitegirl May 2016 #105

If that. Octafish May 2016 #38

that's kinda hard to believe hfojvt May 2016 #41

Did someone say revenue? Warren DeMontague May 2016 #46

shush you! debt is wealth now! Javaman May 2016 #48

+1 Spot on. Phlem May 2016 #96

Because the population numbers are higher felix_numinous May 2016 #56

I'm much more worried about the value of the dollar. nt snappyturtle May 2016 #57

Kick warrprayer May 2016 #59

Global banks have an inordinate amount of power at this bjo59 May 2016 #61

From economic policy institute, Progressive dog May 2016 #67

We have a NEO-CON Problem Ferd Berfel May 2016 #90

+1 Phlem May 2016 #97

+1000000000! colsohlibgal May 2016 #103