Trump's Tax Reform

[Parkbandit]

https://apnews.com/6a409d3266be46dcaa2f1267fd947a12/Senate-OKs-tax-bill-as-Trump,-GOP-near-big-legislative-win

It's yuge.

You're welcome America!

[Fallen]

I don't think anyone, including those who voted for/against the bill, has read all of it yet so who knows what it actually entails.

[Shaps]

You're not getting a single cent from this you do realize this? Just want to get it into that thick ape head that you're getting squat and if you're making less than 200k a year you're actually giving your money away to people making 1 mil+

Cindy is getting $700. :P

[~Rocktar~]

You're not getting a single cent from this you do realize this? Just want to get it into that thick ape head that you're getting squat and if you're making less than 200k a year you're actually giving your money away to people making 1 mil+

How exactly is letting people keep what they legally earned "giving" them anything? How much of someone else's money do you deserve? It's not your, or the governments money in the first place. I just want you to get it into that mush head of yours that you have no clue about economics.

[~Rocktar~]

Rocktar, dude seriously, you're getting played. I'm like you man, if I'm getting more money through a "tax cut" even from Donald J. Trump I would shut my mouth real quick and say "Yes, please!" But this is NOT a tax cut for people making between 70~300k $ In fact, resulting from the confluence of lost itemized deductions, eliminated personal exemptions, and slower indexing of the individual tax brackets, this is a tax increase.

Please, you need to discuss this with your tax lawyer or CPA, don't trust fucking Rush Limbaugh or crazy conspiracy conservative news they all are making millions a year selling shit to you and are benefiting handsomely from this.

Unlike you, I am not so envious of those that have more than I do as to want them to pay me money or to be taxed to where they are on the same income level as I am. I am not jealous of what they have as you are. I also don't think we should continue taxing them to pay for the massive welfare state. Somewhere around 2/3 of the budget is all entitlement programs. Wealth redistribution at it lowest common denominator. Instead of living the life of a victim as you and so many other Liberals do, I chose to take responsibility for my life and all the shitty decisions I have made in it, accept the consequences of some poor life choices and work to improve myself and others.

Envy and jealousy are ugly emotions.

Again how exactly is letting people keep what they legally earned "giving" them anything? How much of someone else's money do you deserve?

[ClydeR]

Elections have consequences.


Some of the biggest losers under the Republican tax overhaul include upper-middle class families in high-tax areas like New York City, graduate students, government workers and public school teachers.

The one thing they have in common? They’re mostly Democrats.

More... (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-05/-death-to-democrats-how-the-gop-tax-bill-whacks-liberal-tenets)

[Parkbandit]

For the really, really stupid people out there that still believe this is a tax cut ZOMG 4TEHRICH!

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-13/a-tale-of-two-tax-bills-how-you-d-fare-from-manhattan-to-malibu

[Latrinsorm]

For the really, really stupid people out there that still believe this is a tax cut ZOMG 4TEHRICH!

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-13/a-tale-of-two-tax-bills-how-you-d-fare-from-manhattan-to-malibuThere is no "this". Nobody knows what the conference will produce, or whether it will pass reconciliation rules, or whether it will pass either house of Congress.

[ClydeR]

Trump had planned to sign the tax bill before Christmas, but due to a drafting oversight and to keep Democrats from whining about cuts to Medicare, he has decided to wait until January to sign it.


WASHINGTON — Celebrations aside, President Trump may wait until next year to sign the tax bill into law, delaying $120 billion in automatic cuts to popular programs such as Medicare and sparing Republicans from having to explain them in an election year.

Here's why: If Trump signs the tax bill this month, it could trigger steep automatic spending cuts early next year to a raft of programs. But if Trump waits until January to sign the bill, the spending cuts would be delayed until 2019 — after next year's congressional elections — giving lawmakers a full year to prevent them.

Congress gave final approval to the $1.5 trillion tax package Wednesday, sending it to Trump.

The bill-signing delay wouldn't affect taxpayers. The tax cuts would still go into effect in January, and workers would still start to see changes in the amount of taxes withheld from their paychecks in February.

More... (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/no-tax-cuts-for-christmas-trump-might-delay-bill-signing/)

[Archigeek]

8879

Serfs gonna serf.

[Parkbandit]

I'm getting tired of winning.

Please President Trump... let's take a small break!

[Parkbandit]

https://cdn1.ijr.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/DRhfsNVX0AEJpRC.jpg


https://cdn1.ijr.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/DRgztUhWkAAp49v.jpg

[AnOrdim]

http://fox4kc.com/2017/12/20/hundreds-of-metro-att-employees-laid-off-just-before-christmas/

Gotta find the money somewhere.

[Some Rogue]

https://i.imgur.com/suyNSVf.png

[Parkbandit]

The treasurer, Scott Morrison, has claimed Australia’s economy will be deprived of 1% growth in GDP if parliament does not follow the lead of the US president, Donald Trump, and slash Australia’s headline corporate tax rate.


He has seized on Trump’s tax cuts, overhauling his justification for his proposed $65bn tax cuts to say they are now necessary not because they will add 1% Australia’s GDP growth, but because they will offset a damaging 1% hit to GDP that will supposedly flow from the huge tax cuts in the US without Australia responding.


He said Treasury analysis, which was handed to the government this week but not released publicly, has pointed out that Australia may experience a significant recessionary impact and a potential downgrade in revenues if it does not lower its corporate tax rate from 30% to 25% in coming years, in response to Trump’s cuts.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/dec/21/scott-morrison-says-australia-needs-tax-cuts-to-offset-hit-from-us-cuts

[Fallen]

https://cdn1.ijr.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/DRhfsNVX0AEJpRC.jpg


https://cdn1.ijr.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/DRgztUhWkAAp49v.jpg

Comcast and other ISPs in the US are planning rate hikes for 2018
http://www.pcgamer.com/comcast-and-other-isps-in-the-us-are-planning-rate-hikes-for-2018/

[cwolff]

And, of course, progressive opponents of the GOP tax breaks said the proposal would do real harm to the nation’s finances, and wouldn’t come close to paying for themselves. We can now add this to the list of things Dems got right and Republicans got wrong. Jon Chait had a good summary of the latest findings from the Congressional Budget Office.

The new projections by the Congressional Budget Office, the first federal budget analysis to be released since the Trump tax cuts were passed into law, shows how fully the Republican government has operationalized its theory. CBO now estimates the 2018 deficit will be $242 billion higher than it had estimated last June, before the tax cuts. And the tax cut is the major reason: “Accounting for most of that difference is a $194 billion reduction in projected revenues, mainly because the 2017 tax act is expected to reduce collections of individual and corporate income taxes.”
The deficit is expected to grow to more than 5 percent of gross domestic product. That would make sense if the country was spending to counteract a serious but temporary emergency, like a recession or perhaps a major war. There is no such emergency, though.

Winning so much feels pretty shitty.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/every-criticism-the-republican-tax-plan-proving-true

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/04/new-budget-estimate-trump-tax-cuts-created-fiscal-disaster.html

[RichardCranium]

Good. The government shouldn't be relying on "collections of individual and corporate income taxes" to prop up its deficit.

Cut spending almost everywhere and get your shit together.

[drauz]

Winning so much feels pretty shitty.

You should really provide links to what you quote. So that we can see that this is from a blog.

[cwolff]

Added links for the article quoted and the article that the article quoted.

[Latrinsorm]

Good. The government shouldn't be relying on "collections of individual and corporate income taxes" to prop up its deficit.

Cut spending almost everywhere and get your shit together.Nobody's been seriously interested in cutting since Nixon. Once Reagan invented defense welfare spending that was history. The only choices that could actually happen are increase taxes or go ever deeper into debt.

[Neveragain]

Nobody's been seriously interested in cutting since Nixon. Once Reagan invented defense welfare spending that was history.

It was the cost of defeating the Russians, you sound like a communist.


The only choices that could actually happen are increase taxes or go ever deeper into debt.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/DevotedLightheartedBaldeagle-max-1mb.gif

[cwolff]

I think your GIF is missing a comma.

[RichardCranium]

Nobody's been seriously interested in cutting since Nixon. Once Reagan invented defense welfare spending that was history. The only choices that could actually happen are increase taxes or go ever deeper into debt.

I'm all for tax and spend, if done correctly.

[Androidpk]

Is this what Trump supporters call winning?


President Donald Trump touted the economic growth triggered by his tax cuts in a speech Thursday afternoon, pointing out the projected growth of gross domestic product (GDP) over the next 10 years had increased because of the plan.


But 80 percent of the economic growth generated by the Republican tax cuts will eventually go abroad and benefit foreigners, according to a new report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.


The report found significant differences between projected GDP, which measures the level of production in the U.S., and gross national product, which measures the income earned by all Americans. If the economic impact from GDP is higher than GNP, the difference between the two is income generated in the United States but going to foreigners. According to the CBO, on average 34 percent of income from the economic activity driven by the tax cuts is flowing out of the country, and in 2028, when the full effects of the tax cuts are in place, that number will increase to 80 percent.

[Fortybox]

Is this what Trump supporters call winning?


President Donald Trump touted the economic growth triggered by his tax cuts in a speech Thursday afternoon, pointing out the projected growth of gross domestic product (GDP) over the next 10 years had increased because of the plan.


But 80 percent of the economic growth generated by the Republican tax cuts will eventually go abroad and benefit foreigners, according to a new report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.


The report found significant differences between projected GDP, which measures the level of production in the U.S., and gross national product, which measures the income earned by all Americans. If the economic impact from GDP is higher than GNP, the difference between the two is income generated in the United States but going to foreigners. According to the CBO, on average 34 percent of income from the economic activity driven by the tax cuts is flowing out of the country, and in 2028, when the full effects of the tax cuts are in place, that number will increase to 80 percent.

I know this may be hard for you since you are probably on welfare, but people who actually work are getting more take home pay due to these cuts. Perhaps you might have a buddy that can show you what a paycheck looks like?

The tax cuts have been very nice so far. Time4fun is evening using them to donate and benefit the ACLU!

THANKS TRUMP!!

[cwolff]

Is this what Trump supporters call winning?


President Donald Trump touted the economic growth triggered by his tax cuts in a speech Thursday afternoon, pointing out the projected growth of gross domestic product (GDP) over the next 10 years had increased because of the plan.


But 80 percent of the economic growth generated by the Republican tax cuts will eventually go abroad and benefit foreigners, according to a new report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.


The report found significant differences between projected GDP, which measures the level of production in the U.S., and gross national product, which measures the income earned by all Americans. If the economic impact from GDP is higher than GNP, the difference between the two is income generated in the United States but going to foreigners. According to the CBO, on average 34 percent of income from the economic activity driven by the tax cuts is flowing out of the country, and in 2028, when the full effects of the tax cuts are in place, that number will increase to 80 percent.

So much winning. I'm positively sick of it and looking forward to physically being sick from it as they kill all clean air regs and hire coal executives to run the EPA.

[Androidpk]

I know this may be hard for you since you are probably on welfare, but people who actually work are getting more take home pay due to these cuts. Perhaps you might have a buddy that can show you what a paycheck looks like?

The tax cuts have been very nice so far. Time4fun is evening using them to donate and benefit the ACLU!

THANKS TRUMP!!

foolish troll, you have no power here

[Fortybox]

foolish troll, you have no power here

https://media2.giphy.com/media/uzInCTH2i3QFW/giphy.gif

[~Rocktar~]

Is this what Trump supporters call winning?


President Donald Trump touted the economic growth triggered by his tax cuts in a speech Thursday afternoon, pointing out the projected growth of gross domestic product (GDP) over the next 10 years had increased because of the plan.


But 80 percent of the economic growth generated by the Republican tax cuts will eventually go abroad and benefit foreigners, according to a new report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.


The report found significant differences between projected GDP, which measures the level of production in the U.S., and gross national product, which measures the income earned by all Americans. If the economic impact from GDP is higher than GNP, the difference between the two is income generated in the United States but going to foreigners. According to the CBO, on average 34 percent of income from the economic activity driven by the tax cuts is flowing out of the country, and in 2028, when the full effects of the tax cuts are in place, that number will increase to 80 percent.

But but but no one cares about trade deficits, they are good for the country dontcha know,

[cwolff]

But but but no one cares about trade deficits, they are good for the country dontcha know,

I don't think I care about trade deficits. Should I?

It seems natural that rich countries would import from less rich countries. Do we have to crash the dollar so that we can manufacture and export a ton of crap?

[Neveragain]

So much winning. I'm positively sick of it and looking forward to physically being sick from it as they kill all clean air regs and hire coal executives to run the EPA.

Little heavy on the drama sauce today aren't we?

https://media.giphy.com/media/12SBwtRR9BnWg/giphy.gif

[cwolff]

Little heavy on the drama sauce today aren't we?

Not nearly enough. Seen any reports on Beijing smog? It used to be like that here. I don't want that again.


President Trump took aim at federal air quality standards Thursday, directing the Environmental Protection Agency (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-trump-air-quality-20180412-story.html) to relax restrictions on state governments and businesses that have been key to cutting smog.


In his interview with FRONTLINE, Murray boasted of an “action plan” he says he provided the president in the early days of his administration. The three-and-half-page long wish list detailed, “what he needed to do in his administration,” Murray said, before adding that the president had already, “wiped out page one. (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/a-coal-executives-action-plan-for-trump-is-made-public/)”

[Androidpk]

But but but no one cares about trade deficits, they are good for the country dontcha know,

What does that have to do with the tax reform?

[cwolff]

What does that have to do with the tax reform?

Maybe it has to do with this:

Trump Tax Plan: 80 Percent of Economic Gains Will End Up Going to Foreigners (http://www.newsweek.com/republican-tax-plan-donald-trump-cbo-884129), CBO Says

[Neveragain]

Not nearly enough. Seen any reports on Beijing smog? It used to be like that here. I don't want that again.

Then don't live in a giant fucking city, problem solved.

https://media.giphy.com/media/13py6c5BSnBkic/giphy.gif

[cwolff]

One of you tax plan supporters want to give specifics on your tax savings? I'm reasonably well paid and I didn't notice anything.

I have seen no discernible difference. I changed my 401k contributions, Started a Roth, HSA and upped insurance because of my newborn. Whatever benefit I'm receiving seems to have been swallowed up within those changes.

[Parkbandit]

So much winning. I'm positively sick of it and looking forward to physically being sick from it as they kill all clean air regs and hire coal executives to run the EPA.

https://media1.giphy.com/media/5WXqTFTgO9a7e/200.gif

[Parkbandit]

One of you tax plan supporters want to give specifics on your tax savings? I'm reasonably well paid and I didn't notice anything.

I save about $2400 a year from my payroll taxes alone.

[Parkbandit]

I have seen no discernible difference. I changed my 401k contributions, Started a Roth, HSA and upped insurance because of my newborn. Whatever benefit I'm receiving seems to have been swallowed up within those changes.

So you have increased all those and your paycheck is still the same... but you don't understand how it benefits you?

Are you serious right now.. or just really, really stupid?

[time4fun]

But but but no one cares about trade deficits, they are good for the country dontcha know,

You realize that a trade deficit doesn't mean you're losing money, right?

[time4fun]

I have seen no discernible difference. I changed my 401k contributions, Started a Roth, HSA and upped insurance because of my newborn. Whatever benefit I'm receiving seems to have been swallowed up within those changes.

My marginal went up 2%, but my boyfriend's went down 2.5%. We're also a SALT state. I'm lazy and just do the standard deduction- which means I get back like $6k. He does a full SALT approach, and he's losing like $15k.

So it's really just a wash.

The median income is like $58k or so- those folks are probably getting about $100 a month in their paychecks. That definitely matters, but it's not the huge cash windfall Republicans paint it as.

[Neveragain]

I'm taking home about $2100 more a year, granted it's not as great as the gift the democrats gave me when my insurance costs increased by about that same amount annually but I will keep my money when they allow me to.

[Neveragain]

Just want to say that I can round-a-bout tell how much you’re making a year from this info, just a head’s up.

Hehe, with a 6k return and filing a standard deduction she is definitely not making more money than anyone else on the PC.

https://media.giphy.com/media/11tIB893VLShXi/giphy.gif

[time4fun]

Just want to say that I can round-a-bout tell how much you’re making a year from this info, just a head’s up.

As long as you can't figure out my employer or address, we're okay.

[time4fun]

Trump tax plan: 80 percent of economic gains will end up going to foreigners, CBO Says -- 80 percent of the economic growth generated by the tax cuts will eventually go abroad and benefit foreigners, according to a new report.
http://www.newsweek.com/republican-tax-plan-donald-trump-cbo-884129%3famp=1


Make America Great Aga..er.. sorry Make China Great Again!!

This is why you don't give rich people tax breaks.

My biggest pet peeve is the fantasy that the money goes into job creation. Jobs are created when the middle class has more money to spend- not when the wealthy have more to spend

[time4fun]

Why pay 37% and work for a living when you can pay 15% and vacation all year?

[Wrathbringer]

Why pay 37% and work for a living when you can pay 15% and vacation all year?

Just shut up already you stupid butthurt bitch. Go back to your safe space forum where you belong.

[Neveragain]

This is why you don't give rich people tax breaks.

My biggest pet peeve is the fantasy that the money goes into job creation. Jobs are created when the middle class has more money to spend- not when the wealthy have more to spend

You are fucking rock stupid.

[cwolff]

My marginal went up 2%, but my boyfriend's went down 2.5%. We're also a SALT state. I'm lazy and just do the standard deduction- which means I get back like $6k. He does a full SALT approach, and he's losing like $15k.

So it's really just a wash.

The median income is like $58k or so- those folks are probably getting about $100 a month in their paychecks. That definitely matters, but it's not the huge cash windfall Republicans paint it as.

I should be seeing a benefit. I even changed from 0 to 5 on my withholding for this year. That should leave me owing a little bit next April. I'll do the math when I get home but were only talking about a few % points difference. All in all not that big a deal. No SALT problems here in CO but I don't make so much that I'd cross that 10k threshold anyway

[Wrathbringer]

You are fucking rock stupid.

This is correct.

[time4fun]

I should be seeing a benefit. I even changed from 0 to 5 on my withholding for this year. That should leave me owing a little bit next April. I'll do the math when I get home but were only talking about a few % points difference. All in all not that big a deal. No SALT problems here in CO but I don't make so much that I'd cross that 10k threshold anyway

The Roth and the HSA are likely eating it all up, as you stated earlier.

I think you're hitting on the issue with the tax cut bill though. There are so many factors that go into your net paycheck (most of which reduce it, and most of which kick in at the beginning of the year) that most folks who are getting some money back aren't going to directly attribute things to the tax bill.

Roth was a good idea though. Taxes aren't going to be able to stay this low forever.

And A LOT of the people making enough to have a noticable increase are the ones losing a lot of money in the SALT and mortgage deduction caps.

[time4fun]

You are fucking rock stupid.

ROFL

It's funny that you feel so strongly about taxes and yet have absolutely no understanding of how they impact the economy.

Nor apparently how business works.

[Fortybox]

Just want to say that I can round-a-bout tell how much you’re making a year from this info, just a head’s up.

Like it matters in California.

[Methais]

We're also a SALT state..

No wonder why you're so cunty all the time.

https://i.redd.it/wnnunwa1msvy.jpg

[cwolff]

ROFL

It's funny that you feel so strongly about taxes and yet have absolutely no understanding of how they impact the economy.

Nor apparently how business works.

What's interesting to me is that we have done a 10 year "job creator" experiment. We've had economic gains since the 2008 problems, corporations are stockpiling tons of cash, stock markets been steadily going up, unemployment going down, taxes low yet inequality is rising. That whole maker v taker/job creator mythology is busted but GOP/conservative types refuse to recognize their failed theory

[Methais]

You are fucking rock stupid.

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2017-03/23/18/asset/buzzfeed-prod-fastlane-03/anigif_sub-buzz-31003-1490307221-1.gif

[Back]

Just shut up already you stupid butthurt bitch. Go back to your safe space forum where you belong.

Someone needs a diaper change.

[Methais]

I am a retard. I'm disabled. I'm poor. I'm black. I'm gay. I'm transgender. I'm a woman.

It's ok to be stupid. Just don't brag about it.

[Wrathbringer]

Someone needs a diaper change.

:lol:

[Methais]

Even if these tards lost money on the tax deal they will imagine they got money from it. People like Wrath and Meth only get their solace from their skin colour because mommy said they were special. And now finally there’s a President who looks like them, says the same shit, and has the same retarded IQ, hateful worldview. (although the tards don’t get he really despises poor white niggers like them). Now they feel better, now they are once again “mommy’s special boy.”

It's funny how the more of your accounts Kranar wrecks, the more and more emotional you get. :lol:

TLDR:
https://media.giphy.com/media/Gt4FaBEFngjL2/giphy.gif

[time4fun]

What's interesting to me is that we have done a 10 year "job creator" experiment. We've had economic gains since the 2008 problems, corporations are stockpiling tons of cash, stock markets been steadily going up, unemployment going down, taxes low yet inequality is rising. That whole maker v taker/job creator mythology is busted but GOP/conservative types refuse to recognize their failed theory

The CBO Published a study in 2012 (https://www.democrats.senate.gov//files/documents/CRSTaxesandtheEconomy%20Top%20Rates.pdf)that demonstrated no correlation between the top marginal tax rate and economic growth, but they DID find a big correlation between the top marginal tax rate and income inequality (GASP- I know!). House Republicans immediately try to squelch the report, but it was eventually able to be released. Here's a summary of the findings:


The top income tax rates have changed considerably since the end of World War II. Throughout
the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it is 35%.
Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25% in the 1950s and 1960s, 35% in the 1970s;
today it is 15%. The average tax rate faced by the top 0.01% of taxpayers was above 40% until
the mid-1980s; today it is below 25%. Tax rates affecting taxpayers at the top of the income
distribution are currently at their lowest levels since the end of the second World War.


The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate
and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in
the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The
top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie.


However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of
income at the top of the income distribution. As measured by IRS data, the share of income
accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before
falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the
top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009. Tax policy could have a relation to
how the economic pie is sliced—lower top tax rates may be associated with greater income
disparities.

It's just part of this really disturbing trend over the last few decades of conservatives refusing to accept facts over ideology. Some of our best economic years were under Clinton after we increased taxes on the wealthy.

If you want to see what happens when there's a LOT of money floating around that's concentrated in the hands of a few- come visit the Bay Area. Inflation rises rapidly, and only the people with money can keep up. Meanwhile, we have people making $50k a year who are living in their cars. Greenspan warned the GOP (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/06/greenspan-tax-reform-will-do-very-little-for-growth-inflation-is-biggest-danger.html) about this before they passed the last tax bill.

And if you want to see what happens when you start massively dropping taxes- especially on the wealthy- go visit Kansas (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/tax-trump-kansas/542532/) and Oklahoma. (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/education/history-of-tax-cuts-catches-up-to-oklahoma-as-state/article_ec192755-9cd7-5067-a61c-79f25ed382d4.html)

[cwolff]

It ain't rocket surgery is it? I put a lot of blame on the boomers. Trump is just icing on the shitcake they're leaving us with. As they die out we can set a better course

[Wrathbringer]

you guys need to get lives. Being political retards on a text based game forum isn't exactly a good use of your time.

[Ashliana]

you guys need to get lives. Being political retards on a text based game forum isn't exactly a good use of your time.

Time and the others discuss things they're interested in. You cycle through the same two responses to anyone who isn't a far-right kook like you are. Who's wasting their time?

https://i.imgur.com/3XOZBE9.png

[Fortybox]

Time and the others discuss things they're interested in. You cycle through the same two responses to anyone who isn't a far-right kook like you are. Who's wasting their time?

https://i.imgur.com/3XOZBE9.png

Did you really take the time to make this? Get a job!

[Methais]

It's funny how the more of your accounts Kranar wrecks, the more and more emotional you get. :lol:

TLDR:
https://media.giphy.com/media/Gt4FaBEFngjL2/giphy.gif

https://i.imgflip.com/28cchi.jpg

:lol:

[~Rocktar~]

you guys need to get lives. Being political retards on a text based game forum isn't exactly a good use of your time.

This is correct.

[Wrathbringer]

https://i.imgflip.com/28cchi.jpg

:lol:

:lol:

[Neveragain]

ROFL

It's funny that you feel so strongly about taxes and yet have absolutely no understanding of how they impact the economy.

Nor apparently how business works.

This is totally the broken window fallacy, this is one of the common traits of leftists. You act as if that tax money wouldn't or is not spent otherwise, the only difference is that people choose what to do with their money instead of the government. People still have basic needs with or without the existence of a government.

Like I said, you are dense as a rock.

[cwolff]

The latest Employment Situation report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows weekly employee earnings have grown $75 since tax reform passed, well short of the $4,000 to $9,000 annual increases projected by President Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.).

During the three months following passage of the tax bill, the average American saw a $6.21 increase in average weekly earnings. Assuming 12 weeks of work during the three months following passage of the corporate tax cuts, this equates to a $75 increase.

This isn't working out as planned. We better pass more tax cuts. Give the "makers" more money to piss down their legs and surely we'll all get wet? Right?

http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/383045-wage-growth-well-short-of-what-was-promised-from-tax-reform

[cwolff]

But a new analysis of all Fortune 500 companies (http://www.newsweek.com/republican-tax-cuts-trump-wage-increases-879800) found only 4.3 percent of workers will receive a one-time bonus or wage increase tied to the business tax cuts, while businesses received nine times more in cuts than what they passed on to their workers, according to Americans for Tax Fairness, a political advocacy group devoted to tax reform. The analysis also found that companies spent 37 times as much on stock buybacks than they did on bonuses and increased wages for workers.

To be fair, no one could see this coming. We though for sure all that extra money would trickle down.

[Parkbandit]

I can't speak for anyone else, but the tax cuts worked as intended for me.

We even hired a new employee from the uptick in business we've had.. and this is normally our slow season.

[time4fun]

To be fair, no one could see this coming. We though for sure all that extra money would trickle down.

:lol:

[cwolff]

Seth Klarman, the billionaire CEO of the Baupost Group who the Economist once dubbed “The Oracle of Boston,” called out Republicans for failing to keep President Donald Trump in check.

Some good news from the shitty tax cuts. This guy has already donated a quarter million to Democrat campaigns.

He used to donate to the GOP, but has switched sides

[Gelston]

He used to donate to the GOP, but has switched sides

He is a registered independent and has donated to both sides. He donated to Hillary in 2016.

[Parkbandit]

He is a registered independent and has donated to both sides. He donated to Hillary in 2016.

Why don't you just SHUT UP! He actually found good news from the tax cuts that he couldn't before and now you ruined it.

Sure, he was able to increase his IRA, increase his medical insurance, set up a Roth and a HSA.. but with his feeble mind, he couldn't figure out that he was making more per paycheck.

At least this was something he could understand and you stole it from him.

Bastard.

[cwolff]

He is a registered independent and has donated to both sides. He donated to Hillary in 2016.

True, he donated to Hillary to defend the nation from trump.

From the Boston Globe:


By Annie Linskey Globe Staff
April 15, 2018
Boston hedge fund billionaire Seth Klarman lavished more than $7 million on Republican candidates and political committees during the Obama administration, using his fortune to help underwrite a GOP takeover of the federal government.

But the rise of Donald Trump shocked and dismayed Klarman, as did the timid response from the Republican-controlled House and Senate, which have acquiesced rather than challenge the president’s erratic and divisive ways. So, in an astonishing flip, Klarman, at one point New England’s most generous donor to Republicans, is taking his money elsewhere: He’s heaping cash on Democrats.

[Gelston]

From the Boston Globe:

So? He has a history of donating to both sides and IS a registered independent. You are trying to act as if he is "switching sides" when he was never on any side in the first place.

It is a fact that in 2016 he gave the max amount you can donate to the Hillary campaign.

[cwolff]

So? He has a history of donating to both sides and IS a registered independent. You are trying to act as if he is "switching sides" when he was never on any side in the first place.

It is a fact that in 2016 he gave the max amount you can donate to the Hillary campaign.

Yes I am. He's been a Republican donor. Spent 8 years fighting Obama. Trump turned him off and now this tax sham has completely turned him.

[Gelston]

Yes I am. He's been a Republican donor. Spent 8 years fighting Obama. Trump turned him off and now this tax sham has completely turned him.

He's been a democrat donor too. So?

[Methais]

I don't understand the concept of being an independent, even after it was just explained to me. Probably because I'm retarded.

This is correct.

[time4fun]

Yes I am. He's been a Republican donor. Spent 8 years fighting Obama. Trump turned him off and now this tax sham has completely turned him.

This is accurate. In fairness to Republicans though, they've- at least publicly- already written him off. So they aren't losing money they had anticipated getting.

But they likely hadn't anticipated him giving to Democratic Congressional candidates. That's a very new development- and an unwelcome one I'm sure.

[Wrathbringer]

This is accurate. In fairness to Republicans though, they've- at least publicly- already written him off. So they aren't losing money they had anticipated getting.

But they likely hadn't anticipated him giving to Democratic Congressional candidates. That's a very new development- and an unwelcome one I'm sure.

You're retarded.

[Fortybox]

This is accurate. In fairness to Republicans though, they've- at least publicly- already written him off. So they aren't losing money they had anticipated getting.

But they likely hadn't anticipated him giving to Democratic Congressional candidates. That's a very new development- and an unwelcome one I'm sure.

You’re agenda is very clear. Nothing fair about it. At least be honest...

[cwolff]

Here’s the worse part: The conventional comparison is misleading. The projected budget deficits in the coming decade are essentially “full-employment” deficits. This is significant because, while budget deficits can be helpful in recessions by providing an economic stimulus, there are good reasons we should be retrenching during good economic times, including the one we are in now. In fact, CBO projects that, over the 2018-2028 period, actual and potential GDP will be equal. As President Kennedy once said “the time to repair the roof is when the sun is shining.” Instead, we are punching more holes in the fiscal roof.

In order to do an “apples to apples” comparison, we should compare our projected Federal budget deficits to full employment deficits. From 1965-2017, full employment deficits averaged just 2.3 percent of GDP, far lower than either our current deficit or the ones projected for the future.

The fact that debt and deficits are rising under conditions of full employment suggests a deeper underlying fiscal problem.

And these tax cuts are supposed to be paid for by a big boom in the economy. Who thinks we'll get through the next 10 years without a decent recession? Everyone should vote democrat if only to have responsible money managers in power because the GOP sure isn't.

[Neveragain]

And these tax cuts are supposed to be paid for by a big boom in the economy. Who thinks we'll get through the next 10 years without a decent recession? Everyone should vote democrat if only to have responsible money managers in power because the GOP sure isn't.

http://www.pmslweb.com/the-blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/14-funny-butthurt-gif.gif

[cwolff]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LE5zCe6-bw

[Methais]

Eveeyone should vote democrat if only to have responsible money managers in power

Obvious troll is obvious.

[~Rocktar~]

And these tax cuts are supposed to be paid for by a big boom in the economy. Who thinks we'll get through the next 10 years without a decent recession? Everyone should vote democrat if only to have responsible money managers in power because the GOP sure isn't.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Democrats responsible money managers? You got sold of some good shit if you think that. Remember that Democrats gave us the Social Security scam, ballooned the debt over 8 years, continued 2 unpopular wars and several other "interventions on the behalf of the people" that have cost us tons of cash, ballooned entitlement programs and that doesn't even touch the amount of spending increase due to the "revenue neutral" burden of Obamacare.

Seriously, you must be smoking some premium ganja because thinking Democrats are more fiscally responsible than Republicans is seriously fucked up. Troll harder.


Obvious troll is obvious.

This is correct.

[Androidpk]

To think either one of the parties is fiscally responsible is a fucking riot.

[~Rocktar~]

To think either one of the parties is fiscally responsible is a fucking riot.

One is simply irresponsible in the direction of entitlement programs and pork, the other is irresponsible in the direction of military and pork. Both are buying votes. I believe one ends up with more long term benefits than the other.

[time4fun]

With the exception of Obama's first term (where we had to use government spending to keep our economy from collapsing), Democratic Presidents do better- on the whole- than Republican Presidents when it comes to deficit spending. There's a tendency for people to look at the state of the national debt (which is accumulated from past budgets and grows at an exponential rate due to interest) instead of the annual budget deficit. But deficit spending in the annual budget is the actual measure of how a given administration is doing on this front (well Congress really). Reagan and Bush were particularly bad.

Our deficit became a huge issue once Republicans started slashing taxes. Government spending is actually good for the economy (spoiler alert- so is NOT having 60 million retired or disabled people on the streets because they can't afford to pay their bills and also can't work). Slashing revenue is not. The myth that those tax cuts spur economic growth that "pays for it" is abjectly false. The CBO found no correlation between tax cuts and economic growth (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/business/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf)in 2012. All they do is drown the country in debt.

Some of our best growth years were actually from Clinton's second term after we raised taxes on the wealthy.

And, just so we are 100% clear- Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are not "entitlements". We pay for them.

[Wrathbringer]

You're retarded.

[~Rocktar~]

You're retarded.
This is correct.


With the exception of Obama's first term (where we had to use government spending to keep our economy from collapsing), Democratic Presidents do better- on the whole- than Republican Presidents when it comes to deficit spending. There's a tendency for people to look at the state of the national debt (which is accumulated from past budgets and grows at an exponential rate due to interest) instead of the annual budget deficit. But deficit spending in the annual budget is the actual measure of how a given administration is doing on this front (well Congress really). Reagan and Bush were particularly bad.

Our deficit became a huge issue once Republicans started slashing taxes. Government spending is actually good for the economy (spoiler alert- so is NOT having 60 million retired or disabled people on the streets because they can't afford to pay their bills and also can't work). Slashing revenue is not. The myth that those tax cuts spur economic growth that "pays for it" is abjectly false. The CBO found no correlation between tax cuts and economic growth (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/business/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf)in 2012. All they do is drown the country in debt.

Which is better for the economy, government spending or private spending? Here is a hint https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2017/december/government-spending-stimulate-economy

From the referenced article:

The overall takeaway from my research is that government spending does not seem to be a very cost-effective way to stimulate the economy and create jobs.

How long does it take for less taxes to increase economic activity? Let me give you a clue, a lot more slowly than increasing taxes slows the economy.

Also, the Brookings Institute disagrees with the CBO's assessment. https://www.brookings.edu/research/effects-of-income-tax-changes-on-economic-growth/


First, debt-financed tax cuts will tend to boost short-term growth (as in standard Keynesian models and in the literature using the narrative approach), but also tend to reduce long-term growth, if they are financed eventually by higher taxes. Second, revenue-neutral income tax reform can provide a modest boost to economic growth.


Some of our best growth years were actually from Clinton's second term after we raised taxes on the wealthy.

Are you suggesting that tax increases are good for economic activity? HAHAHAHHAHA!


And, just so we are 100% clear- Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are not "entitlements". We pay for them.

Wrong. You Social Security is a Ponzi scheme in it's purest form. There is no investment, there is no "trust fund" it is a Ponzi scheme paid for by getting new people to enroll. You get out all you paid in over the first 2.5 to 3 years of getting benefits after that it is simply an entitlement. Here is some older reading with a nice graph to demonstrate the real problem with it, other than the fact people believed that it was either Social or Secure. https://www.mercatus.org/publication/how-many-workers-support-one-social-security-retiree

Keep in mind, the number of workers per recipient is shrinking and one theory as to why Leftists want illegals (other than most South and Central Americans tend fo vote Democrat) is that they pay in without getting anything out of it. It allows them to kick the can down the road and continue to refuse to admit that they have been lying all along.

Now on to Medicare. Again, there is no interest earned and no real return on investment so it is always losing money at the rate of inflation. Here are some facts about Medicare to clearly demonstrate that it is an entitlement. http://www.ncpssm.org/Medicare/MedicareFastFacts


Medicare Part A* (HI) Financing and Tax Rate:

Financing: Primarily finance by payroll taxes* (yay)

Tax rate paid by employee: 1.45%
Tax rate paid by employer: 1.45%
Total tax rate paid by both employer-employee: 2.90%
Total tax rate paid by self-employed: 2.90%
Beginning in 2013, workers pay an additional 0.9 percent of their earnings above $200,000 (for those who file an individual return) or $250,000 (for those who file a joint income tax return)

Medicare Part B

Financing:

About 25% by monthly premiums;
About 75% from general federal revenues*

Medicare Part D

Financing:

• About 14% by monthly premiums;
• About 76% from general federal revenues*
• About 10% from state payments and interest*

* emphasis added

When the vast majority of your funding comes from the general fund, you are an entitlement.

And lastly, here is the fun one since it is hard to nail down the cost since each state has it's own budget so I will take information from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid


Medicaid payments currently assist nearly 60 percent of all nursing home residents and about 37 percent of all childbirths in the United States. The federal government pays on average 57 percent of Medicaid expenses. **

** emphasis added

So, yes, those are entitlements and no, we don't come close to paying in, directly in taxes for them, what they cost to support. They are bloated and crippling social entitlement programs that have grown well beyond what any lying politician could ever admit in public. Here is a breakdown of the 2015 budget: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

Please take note of chart number 4, titled "Total Federal Spending 2015: $3.8 Trillion"

Now, before you want to nitpick and cry about things included in those categories, I concede that the numbers may not be absolutely accurate and do include some other programs like SNAP (which increased enrollees by some 13 million under Obama) and others. The point is painfully obvious for anyone now smoking the Leftist/Socialist crack pipe that spending in those areas is the vast majority of our budget and yet no one ever wants to mess with it. Now I understand why they don't want to mess with it because people are greedy and selfish and it pulls on emotional heartstrings and can't handle the truth so they would vote people out no matter how much the country needs some restraint here. Seriously, claiming those are not entitlements is just amateurish and delusional.

What I find funny is that even taking the stock market crash into account, had the Bush Jr era proposal of letting people invest just 1/2 of their Social Security money into an index fund been put into effect, people retiring today would have somewhere around 50% more retirement income. But hey, who wants to let the people control their own retirement money much less their own life, right?

[time4fun]

First- good job providing sources to support your claims. It's a post worth taking seriously. Having said that- you should be careful with your sources. I'll break this up into the taxation issue and then do another post on Social Security as this is just a wall of text.


Durpor's Work:
First- you are drawing a conclusion from Durpor's work that isn't supported by the work itself. Durpor's research was on Defense spending and on the employment elements of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Defense spending is just one type of government spending that doesn't represent the aggregated multiplier of all government spending, and Durpor's work is actually in contradiction with Nakamura and Steinsen's research (http://www.columbia.edu/~en2198/papers/fiscal.pdf)- which- to put it mildly- is a far more cited work. Nakamura and Steinsen actually found that Defense spending had a multiplier of 1.5. [Note that there are some contingencies regarding the current state of the economy during spending in their analysis that are important context]

Durpor's work on the ARRA was also incredibly specific. First- the job creation provisions of the ARRA were just one part of the larger bill. But secondly his research found that the government was paying more to create jobs than the private sector would typically pay, but we were in the middle of a recession. Private employers were paying $0 at that point because they were shedding jobs, not creating new ones.

The CBO estimates (https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/113th-congress-2013-2014/reports/45122-ARRA.pdf) that the core provisions of the ARRA had multipliers up to 2.5. Interestingly enough, the provision of the ARRA that had the lowest estimated multiplier (maximum estimate of .4) was the corporate tax provision. In the first year alone, the ARRA was estimated to have increased the GDP by between 1.4-3.8%, which is why the CBO adjusted its GDP projection from a contraction of about 5% to ~3%. (In fact GDP went down 2.9%, vs 5.4% the previous quarter) Overall, I believe the ARRA was estimated by outside groups to have an aggregated multiplier of around 1.5 (This is based on memory, and I cant' find the citation for it, so I don't expect you to take my word for it)

Brookings:

I did a double take when you cited Brookings. They're an extremely prestigious think tank, so their work is highly respected. But they're also a left-leaning think tank that was highly critical (https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2017/11/03/9-things-to-know-about-the-house-gop-tax-plan/) of the GOP tax plan. (They're always critical of GOP tax plans) The synopsis of their work that you cited didn't argue that tax cuts were good for the economy- it argued that tax cuts as we had implemented them were actually bad for the economy.


Section IV explores empirical evidence on taxes and growth from studies of major income tax changes in the United States. Consistent with the discussion in Section III, the studies find little evidence that tax cuts or tax reform since 1980 have impacted the long-term growth rate significantly.


Section III provides an empirical starting point. We show that growth rates over long periods of time in the United States have not changed in tandem with the massive changes in the structure and revenue yield of the tax system that have occurred. We also report findings from Piketty, Saez and Stantcheva (2014) that, across advanced countries, even large changes in the top marginal income tax rate over time do not appear to be strongly correlated with rates of growth.

It's summed up beforehand in this sentence:


We find that, while there is no doubt that tax policy can influence economic choices, it is by no means obvious, on an ex ante basis, that tax rate cuts will ultimately lead to a larger economy in the long run

So, unfortunately, Brookings does not disagree with me.

[~Rocktar~]

Yes Brookings did and you ignored it as you always do.


First, debt-financed tax cuts will tend to boost short-term growth (as in standard Keynesian models and in the literature using the narrative approach), but also tend to reduce long-term growth, if they are financed eventually by higher taxes. Second, revenue-neutral income tax reform can provide a modest boost to economic growth.

Your post is a giant excuse as to why you ignore the obvious and don't answer any of my questions. You simply try and cite why you can discount my sources even when I qualify them as I did. Try again, this is a fail.

[cwolff]

Yes Brookings did and you ignored it as you always do.


First, debt-financed tax cuts will tend to boost short-term growth (as in standard Keynesian models and in the literature using the narrative approach), but also tend to reduce long-term growth, if they are financed eventually by higher taxes. Second, revenue-neutral income tax reform can provide a modest boost to economic growth.

Your post is a giant excuse as to why you ignore the obvious and don't answer any of my questions. You simply try and cite why you can discount my sources even when I qualify them as I did. Try again, this is a fail.

Ya, like I said. Dems are better money managers. Trump, Ryan and McConnell recently did debt financed tax cuts and we'll have to raise taxes to pay for them. Bush did the same shit (even started a fucking war with no tax raise) and we should raise taxes to pay for that too.

In the meantime, single payer will save money and Social Security is one of the most responsible things we've done as a nation. It's not a "Ponzi" scheme and the reason you want it privatized is because someone somewhere out there wants to make big ass commission on the collected money. They can't make that commission if Uncle Sam is holding the cash.

[time4fun]

Yes Brookings did and you ignored it as you always do.



Your post is a giant excuse as to why you ignore the obvious and don't answer any of my questions. You simply try and cite why you can discount my sources even when I qualify them as I did. Try again, this is a fail.

Um. Rockstar- what do you think that sentence you just cited means? I'm asking this sincerely.

[time4fun]

Ya, like I said. Dems are better money managers. Trump, Ryan and McConnell recently did debt financed tax cuts and we'll have to raise taxes to pay for them. Bush did the same shit (even started a fucking war with no tax raise) and we should raise taxes to pay for that too.

Yeah, I don't think he realizes that's what the line he quoted is saying.

[~Rocktar~]

Ya, like I said. Dems are better money managers. Trump, Ryan and McConnell recently did debt financed tax cuts and we'll have to raise taxes to pay for them. Bush did the same shit (even started a fucking war with no tax raise) and we should raise taxes to pay for that too.

In the meantime, single payer will save money and Social Security is one of the most responsible things we've done as a nation. It's not a "Ponzi" scheme and the reason you want it privatized is because someone somewhere out there wants to make big ass commission on the collected money. They can't make that commission if Uncle Sam is holding the cash.

You need to look up the definition of Ponzi scheme. It is 100% a Ponzi scheme. Notice how you never even consider the idea of lowering spending to pay for tax cuts. This is the problem of Leftists.

Single payer ends up in higher over all costs, reduced quality of care and rationing. Look at EVERY country that has it and that is the case, it is just a matter of time. Also, to continue to make it work, sooner or later you resort to coercion and/or slavery. Also, look up index mutual funds, the commission on them is miniature and could likely be eliminated almost entirely on the basis of electronic processing by the Social Security Administration. And even paying for any such commission, you STILL would end up with around 50% more retirement income.

[~Rocktar~]

Um. Rockstar- what do you think that sentence you just cited means? I'm asking this sincerely.

Ok, to explain it in simple terms. Lower taxes help short term, paying for them by tax increases later is bad. Paying for them with spending cuts produces moderate improvement.

So, clearly, spending cuts are needed and none of you even consider them. Ever unless they are on defense spending which is over all more helpful to the economy than welfare spending.

[time4fun]

Ok, to explain it in simple terms. Lower taxes help short term, paying for them by tax increases later is bad. Paying for them with spending cuts produces moderate improvement.

So, clearly, spending cuts are needed and none of you even consider them. Ever unless they are on defense spending which is over all more helpful to the economy than welfare spending.Okay so first- if you're citing Brookings to support a conservative stance on taxes then you're already lost. Secondly, there is no "clearly" about the spending cuts piece. Nothing anyone has cited has indicated that, and I just gave you examples of government spending with multipliers as high as 2.5- which severely undercuts your argument (especially since they were multipliers for the spending your first source discussed).

As far as your second source Brookings- when they say this:


First, debt-financed tax cuts will tend to boost short-term growth (as in standard Keynesian models and in the literature using the narrative approach), but also tend to reduce long-term growth, if they are financed eventually by higher taxes. Second, revenue-neutral income tax reform can provide a modest boost to economic growth.

1) The first half of that is directly criticizing the standard GOP tax cuts. "Debt-financed tax cuts" literally means cutting taxes while you're in a deficit spending cycle. That would be every GOP tax cut since Reagan (hence why their analysis starts in 1980). When they say "eventually financed by higher taxes", they're pointing out that eventually taxes will end up being increased to stop us from drowning in the deficits that the tax cuts are creating. They're not making an argument for spending reductions or against raising taxes generally. They're arguing against using debt-financed tax cuts in the first place because the inevitable conclusion is contraction in growth. (See below)

Part of the reason why they make the Keynesian disclaimer is that they're trying to make it clear that that the short-term gain in growth from debt-finance taxes isn't evidence that they're good for the economy. Keynesian economic theory fell out of favor after the stagflation of the 70s, but it was brought back to the forefront by liberal economists during the Great Recession. That was the economic theory behind increasing government spending to kickstart the economy (which worked). Conservative economists are still highly skeptical of Keynes. So the other reason for the disclaimer was to head off conservative critiques of their use of a Keynesian economic framework based on the short-term benefits of these tax cuts.


2) The second piece is also there to stand in stark contrast to the GOP tax cuts. An example of a "revenue neutral" tax plan would be one that raises taxes on the wealthy to decrease taxes on everyone else. That's Brookings being subtle and a tad snarky- which would be more apparent if you read the entire piece.

If you want something from Brookings that's a little more digestible, try this article (https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2017/11/03/9-things-to-know-about-the-house-gop-tax-plan/). The abstract you linked to is intended for Policy wonks and to a lesser extent academics, not regular folk. The article I just linked encompasses the critiques in what you cited (and then some) but in language intended for the non-DC audience.

[Parkbandit]

To think either one of the parties is fiscally responsible is a fucking riot.

Government isn't fiscally responsible.

[Parkbandit]

With the exception of Obama's first term (where we had to use government spending to keep our economy from collapsing), Democratic Presidents do better- on the whole- than Republican Presidents when it comes to deficit spending. There's a tendency for people to look at the state of the national debt (which is accumulated from past budgets and grows at an exponential rate due to interest) instead of the annual budget deficit. But deficit spending in the annual budget is the actual measure of how a given administration is doing on this front (well Congress really). Reagan and Bush were particularly bad.

Our deficit became a huge issue once Republicans started slashing taxes. Government spending is actually good for the economy (spoiler alert- so is NOT having 60 million retired or disabled people on the streets because they can't afford to pay their bills and also can't work). Slashing revenue is not. The myth that those tax cuts spur economic growth that "pays for it" is abjectly false. The CBO found no correlation between tax cuts and economic growth (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/business/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf)in 2012. All they do is drown the country in debt.

Some of our best growth years were actually from Clinton's second term after we raised taxes on the wealthy.

And, just so we are 100% clear- Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are not "entitlements". We pay for them.

https://media.giphy.com/media/2Tn10AXN6B98k/giphy.gif

[Parkbandit]

Ya, like I said. Dems are better money managers. Trump, Ryan and McConnell recently did debt financed tax cuts and we'll have to raise taxes to pay for them. Bush did the same shit (even started a fucking war with no tax raise) and we should raise taxes to pay for that too.

In the meantime, single payer will save money and Social Security is one of the most responsible things we've done as a nation. It's not a "Ponzi" scheme and the reason you want it privatized is because someone somewhere out there wants to make big ass commission on the collected money. They can't make that commission if Uncle Sam is holding the cash.

https://media.giphy.com/media/2Tn10AXN6B98k/giphy.gif

[~Rocktar~]

Okay so first- if you're citing Brookings to support a conservative stance on taxes then you're already lost. Secondly, there is no "clearly" about the spending cuts piece. Nothing anyone has cited has indicated that, and I just gave you examples of government spending with multipliers as high as 2.5- which severely undercuts your argument (especially since they were multipliers for the spending your first source discussed).

As far as your second source Brookings- when they say this:



1) The first half of that is directly criticizing the standard GOP tax cuts. "Debt-financed tax cuts" literally means cutting taxes while you're in a deficit spending cycle. That would be every GOP tax cut since Reagan (hence why their analysis starts in 1980). When they say "eventually financed by higher taxes", they're pointing out that eventually taxes will end up being increased to stop us from drowning in the deficits that the tax cuts are creating. They're not making an argument for spending reductions or against raising taxes generally. They're arguing against using debt-financed tax cuts in the first place because the inevitable conclusion is contraction in growth. (See below)

Part of the reason why they make the Keynesian disclaimer is that they're trying to make it clear that that the short-term gain in growth from debt-finance taxes isn't evidence that they're good for the economy. Keynesian economic theory fell out of favor after the stagflation of the 70s, but it was brought back to the forefront by liberal economists during the Great Recession. That was the economic theory behind increasing government spending to kickstart the economy (which worked). Conservative economists are still highly skeptical of Keynes. So the other reason for the disclaimer was to head off conservative critiques of their use of a Keynesian economic framework based on the short-term benefits of these tax cuts.


2) The second piece is also there to stand in stark contrast to the GOP tax cuts. An example of a "revenue neutral" tax plan would be one that raises taxes on the wealthy to decrease taxes on everyone else. That's Brookings being subtle and a tad snarky- which would be more apparent if you read the entire piece.

If you want something from Brookings that's a little more digestible, try this article (https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2017/11/03/9-things-to-know-about-the-house-gop-tax-plan/). The abstract you linked to is intended for Policy wonks and to a lesser extent academics, not regular folk. The article I just linked encompasses the critiques in what you cited (and then some) but in language intended for the non-DC audience.

Ummmm, just no. Keep deflecting and denying, it suits you.

[time4fun]

Ummmm, just no. Keep deflecting and denying, it suits you.

ROFLMAO

You didn't bother reading that Brookings article, and now you're pretending like you didn't cite a source that undermined your whole point because your maturity is apparently on par with your reading comprehension skills.

And I know you didn't read it because if you had, the sentence you quoted would not have been the one you cited. There was another in there you should have used.

Though that's giving you a lot of credit- it runs on the assumption that you would have understood it.

Funny how both things you've accused me of were things you were actively doing.

[Neveragain]

ROFLMAO

You didn't bother reading that Brookings article, and now you're pretending like you didn't cite a source that undermined your whole point because your maturity is apparently on par with your reading comprehension skills.

And I know you didn't read it because if you had, the sentence you quoted would not have been the one you cited. There was another in there you should have used.

Though that's giving you a lot of credit- it runs on the assumption that you would have understood it.

Funny how both things you've accused me of were things you were actively doing.

https://media.giphy.com/media/qox1yTvzRLFUk/giphy.gif

[Methais]

ROFLMAO

You didn't bother reading that Brookings article, and now you're pretending like you didn't cite a source that undermined your whole point because your maturity is apparently on par with your reading comprehension skills.

And I know you didn't read it because if you had, the sentence you quoted would not have been the one you cited. There was another in there you should have used.

Though that's giving you a lot of credit- it runs on the assumption that you would have understood it.

Funny how both things you've accused me of were things you were actively doing.

I didn't read your last few posts because only a retard would waste their time doing that, but I already know whatever you're saying in them is...

https://media.giphy.com/media/3oz8xLd9DJq2l2VFtu/giphy.gif

[cwolff]

How the Tax Cut President Trump Loves Will Deepen Trade Deficits He Hates
Major tax cut, higher federal spending will push up imports, widening gap
By Greg Ip
Updated April 18, 2018 11:33 a.m. ET


Among President Donald Trump’s most deeply held economic convictions is that trade deficits are bad, yet his signature economic policy—a major tax cut—likely will deepen the trade deficits he abhors for years to come.

In the WSJ the other day. Funny thing is, I don't care much about trade deficits, but Trump does. He's going to hate this headline.

[Methais]

In the WSJ the other day. Funny thing is, I don't care much about trade deficits, but Trump does. He's going to hate this headline.

https://i.imgur.com/qDbmFt1.gif

[time4fun]

In the WSJ the other day. Funny thing is, I don't care much about trade deficits, but Trump does. He's going to hate this headline.

The talking points he's created around trade deficits are fascinating. He's managed to convince a LOT of people that a trade deficit of $X means the US is losing $X, but that's not remotely what that means.

Don't get me wrong- there are some arguments to be made for why trade deficits can be bad. GDP does factor them in- though that's just a metric. It doesn't mean there's an actual negative impact from it. And there's a school of thought that trade deficits are problematic largely because they create nations with trade surpluses- which can negatively affect the trade of the countries around them. But most economists outside of some die-hard Keynesians and those on the IMF payroll don't consider them to be inherently bad (PS it's kind of funny when IMF economists and liberal economists agree on something). And the ones who do are mostly worried about how trade surpluses affect other countries- which, to put it mildly, isn't typically a factor on Trump's policy recommendations.

[Neveragain]

The talking points he's created around trade deficits are fascinating. He's managed to convince a LOT of people that a trade deficit of $X means the US is losing $X, but that's not remotely what that means.

Don't get me wrong- there are some arguments to be made for why trade deficits can be bad. GDP does factor them in- though that's just a metric. It doesn't mean there's an actual negative impact from it. And there's a school of thought that trade deficits are problematic largely because they create nations with trade surpluses- which can negatively affect the trade of the countries around them. But most economists outside of some die-hard Keynesians and those on the IMF payroll don't consider them to be inherently bad (PS it's kind of funny when IMF economists and liberal economists agree on something). And the ones who do are mostly worried about how trade surpluses affect other countries- which, to put it mildly, isn't typically a factor on Trump's policy recommendations.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/2013/06/I-dont-believe-you.gif

[cwolff]

@AP

BREAKING: US economic growth slowed to 2.3 percent rate in Q1 as consumer spending weakened.

What happened to 6%?


According to Bloomberg, Trump claimed (http://fortune.com/2017/12/07/trump-us-gdp-growth-rate-economy-6-percent/) that the combination of high consumer confidence, job creation, and tax cuts would create this considerable growth. Trump claimed that he sees “no reason why we don’t go to 4, 5, even 6%.”

[Doyle Hargraves]

What happened to 6%?

Hey! I said get out of my house! That goes for cocksuckers and retards! Now get up off your asses'n go! Go on!

[Wrathbringer]

Hey! I said get out of my house! That goes for cocksuckers and retards! Now get up off your asses'n go! Go on!

This is correct.

[cwolff]

Republican Senator Marco Rubio acknowledged in an interview with The Economist that the GOP tax cuts may not be as beneficial to the American worker as Republicans are painting it to be.
"There is still a lot of thinking on the right that if big corporations are happy, they’re going to take the money they’re saving and reinvest it in American workers. In fact they bought back shares, a few gave out bonuses; there’s no evidence whatsoever that the money’s been massively poured back into the American worker.”
— Sen. Marco Rubio

You don't say. Who knew?

[time4fun]

You don't say. Who knew?

Yeah- this is basically what the CBO, Allan Greenspan, and every Democrat said would happen.

Legalizing stock buybacks in the 80s was one of the worst decisions we've made re: income inequality.

[Wrathbringer]

Yeah- this is basically what the CBO, Allan Greenspan, and every Democrat said would happen.

Legalizing stock buybacks in the 80s was one of the worst decisions we've made re: income inequality.

shut up, retard. geez. Constant retardedness from you.

[~Rocktar~]

Yeah- this is basically what the CBO, Allan Greenspan, and every Democrat said would happen.

Legalizing stock buybacks in the 80s was one of the worst decisions we've made re: income inequality.

I would argue that repealing Glass-Steagall, allowing lending rates on short term credit to go as high as 1600% APR and more, free government lending via Freddie Mack, Fannie Mae and Student Loans have done far far more to cause income inequity than stock buybacks ever could.

[time4fun]

I would argue that repealing Glass-Steagall, allowing lending rates on short term credit to go as high as 1600% APR and more, free government lending via Freddie Mack, Fannie Mae and Student Loans have done far far more to cause income inequity than stock buybacks ever could.


Don't take my response as attempting to downplay how dangerous the repeal of Glass-Steagall was, or the fact that it has exacerbated income inequality- in large part because it's what allowed the 2008 crash to happen. (Fun side note- the GOP just pushed through a bill to roll back the financial regulations we put into place after 2008 to try to keep it from happening again)

But Steagall was repealed (mostly) in 1999, and income inequality in this country was already skyrocketing at that point. The biggest factor was around tax cuts. Income inequality actually didn't move much up until the very late 1970s/early 80s. [/URL] Around that time is when we had a significant drop in the top marginal tax rate, In 1982 there was a 20% decrease, and in 1986 there was another 12% decrease. From 1982-1988, the Top 1% went from [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Income_Share_of_Top_1%25_of_Households_C BO_%26_P-S_1979-2011.png"]owning 11% of the income to about 15% (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-highest-marginal-income-tax-rates). In the next 10 years, it went up around another 3%.

But stock buybacks are more pernicious than most people realize. From 2007-2016 (http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/05/investing/stock-buybacks-inequality-tax-law/index.html) 54% of all corporate profits went into stock buybacks. Meanwhile wages have been stagnant during that time. Companies are actually incurring debt to buy their stock back.
It matters because the top 10% of households own 84% of all stocks. Last year, 4% of the US's GDP (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/kill-stock-buyback-to-save-the-american-economy/385259/) went to stock buybacks. That means that 84% of 4% of our entire GDP went to the top 10% of earners and not to wages, training, etc.

It's...bad. REALLY bad.

[Keller]

There is no "this". Nobody knows what the conference will produce, or whether it will pass reconciliation rules, or whether it will pass either house of Congress.


Nobody's been seriously interested in cutting since Nixon. Once Reagan invented defense welfare spending that was history. The only choices that could actually happen are increase taxes or go ever deeper into debt.

So today I was cleaning up my bookmarks and was like "I've not been to the PC in a while, let's go see what that cesspool of social rejects and malcontents is up to."

I clicked through a few of the most recent pages and then this thread piqued my interest since I know a thing or two about taxes.

Reading the thread I remarked, "that Latrinsorm is quite intelligent, articulate, and enjoyable. I'd really like the PC more if it was more Latrin and less other people." Cheers to you, Latrin. I'm impressed you've stuck around here as long as you have.

[Gelston]

So today I was cleaning up my bookmarks and was like "I've not been to the PC in a while, I think I'll go be a dirty troll."

ftfy

[Fortybox]

ftfy

I guess this is what someone, who doesn’t pay any taxes, does in the middle of the day.

[RichardCranium]

So today I was cleaning up my bookmarks and was like "I've not been to the PC in a while, let's go see what that cesspool of social rejects and malcontents is up to."

I clicked through a few of the most recent pages and then this thread piqued my interest since I know a thing or two about taxes.

Reading the thread I remarked, "that Latrinsorm is quite intelligent, articulate, and enjoyable. I'd really like the PC more if it was more Latrin and less other people." Cheers to you, Latrin. I'm impressed you've stuck around here as long as you have.

Son. I am disappoint.

[Keller]

Son. I am disappoint.

Just because I like Latrin's posting doesn't mean I don't like yours, too. You were always one of the more reasonable and emotionally stable people on the PC. <3

[RichardCranium]

No, I'm disappointed you came back to this cesspool.

[Gelston]

Can you take Necro with you when you leave again?

[ClydeR]

How is the tax cut package passed last December affecting the economy? So far, it's mostly fueling stock buybacks. But if the Federal Reserve stops raising interest rates and Trump solves the tariff war, then the tax cuts could boost the general economy, which could lead to increases in wages.


Some of the biggest winners from President Donald Trump’s new tax law are corporate executives who have reaped gains as their companies buy back a record amount of stock, a practice that rewards shareholders by boosting the value of existing shares.

A POLITICO review of data disclosed in Securities and Exchange Commission filings shows the executives, who often receive most of their compensation in stock, have been profiting handsomely by selling shares since Trump signed the law on Dec. 22 and slashed corporate tax rates to 21 percent. That trend is likely to increase, as Wall Street analysts expect buyback activity to accelerate in the coming weeks.


“It is going to be a parade of eye-popping numbers,” said Pat McGurn, the head of strategic research and analysis at Institutional Shareholder Services, a shareholder advisory firm.

More... (https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/30/eye-popping-payouts-for-ceos-follow-trumps-tax-cuts-747649)


To be sure, 44 percent of companies say they also plan to reinvest some savings in their operations through initiatives like new factories, research and development and higher wages, according to Morgan Stanley. That's the kind of uses that featured prominently in Republicans’ marketing of their tax bill.

But that spending hasn’t been as immediate and could be headed off by economic headwinds. The Federal Reserve has cited anecdotal evidence of companies scaling back planned capital expenditures over fears of a trade war. And while more than two dozen companies announced one-time bonuses to employees after the tax bill, wage growth is still sitting at a lackluster 2.7 percent.

“What did companies do with their cash?” said the Morgan Stanley analysis. “In short, a large increase in stock buybacks was the biggest change” in the first quarter of this year from the last quarter of 2017.

[cwolff]

The federal deficit hit $895 billion in the first 11 months of fiscal 2018, an increase of $222 billion, or 32 percent, over the same period the previous year, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
The nonpartisan CBO reported that the central drivers of the increasing deficit were the Republican tax law and the bipartisan agreement to increase spending. As a result, revenue only rose 1 percent, failing to keep up with a 7 percent surge in spending, it added.

Revenue from individual and payroll taxes was up some $105 billion, or 4 percent, while corporate taxes fell $71 billion, or 30 percent.
The August statistics were somewhat inflated, however, due to a timing shift for certain payments, putting the deficit measure through August slightly out of sync with the previous year, the CBO noted. Had it not been for the timing shift, the deficit would have increased $154 billion instead of $222 billion.

Winning? :weird:

[Androidpk]

What happened to fiscal conservatism?

[Parkbandit]

What happened to fiscal conservatism?

Why do you care? You went from Rand Paul (who is) to Bernie Sanders (who is the exact opposite of a fiscal conservative)

Which Androidpk is asking?

[Fortybox]

Winning? :weird:

It's intellectually dishonest when you quote something without giving the source.

The deficit wouldn't be a problem if we cut entitlement spending. Wish someone had the balls to do that. Imagine all the liberal screams then. This is all going to end badly around 2030ish.

[time4fun]

Winning? :weird:

Republicans have been exploding our debt since the 1980s. The fact that people still buy the notion that if we keep cutting taxes, we'll magically have more revenue is insane.

They are the least responsible people when it comes to the economy. They're bankrupting the country and massively increasing inflation and income inequality all at the same time.

[Wrathbringer]

Republicans have been exploding our debt since the 1980s. The fact that people still buy the notion that if we keep cutting taxes, we'll magically have more revenue is insane.

They are the least responsible people when it comes to the economy. They're bankrupting the country and massively increasing inflation and income inequality all at the same time.

You're really stupid.

[Neveragain]

Republicans have been exploding our debt since the 1980s. The fact that people still buy the notion that if we keep cutting taxes, we'll magically have more revenue is insane.

They are the least responsible people when it comes to the economy. They're bankrupting the country and massively increasing inflation and income inequality all at the same time.

Because paying 18% interest on a 30 year mortgage was fucking awesome!

[Tgo01]

Republicans have been exploding our debt since the 1980s. The fact that people still buy the notion that if we keep cutting taxes, we'll magically have more revenue is insane.

Obama doubled the debt? You never got around to explaining how it was "necessary" when Obama did it.

[Fortybox]

Obama doubled the debt? You never got around to explaining how it was "necessary" when Obama did it.

Um...Obama had to do it because Bush screwed everything up. Duh.

https://media.giphy.com/media/pPhyAv5t9V8djyRFJH/giphy.gif

[Ashliana]

Obama doubled the debt? You never got around to explaining how it was "necessary" when Obama did it.

Your ignorance knows no bounds, but Obama didn't "double" anything. Your eyes may glaze over whenever your stupidity is corrected with details, but that willful ignorance is solely on you.

Congress -- not the president -- controls the federal budget. Why did debt increase so much under Obama? Was it reckless spending policies implemented by Democrats? Whoops, nope. It's because the federal deficit was sky-high as Bush left office due to the recession that happened towards the end of nearly a decade of total GOP control of the government, when they saw fit to start two unfunded wars while simultaneously cutting taxes on the wealthy, followed by bailouts of banks first under Bush, then another under Obama. Banks that, Alan Greenspan, chair of the fed under 3 GOP administrations and one Democrat, insisted would self-regulate and needed no government oversight to prevent them from making wild bets, and caused him to eat crow.

Republicans only care about austerity when Democrats are in office. Reagan, Dubya, Trump -- when the GOP is in power, they loot the treasury by spending like drunkards while cutting taxes on the top quintile of households. The only GOP president to even remotely walk the walk was Bush Sr., who faced severe backlash for it from "conservatives."

[Parkbandit]

Republicans have been exploding our debt since the 1980s. The fact that people still buy the notion that if we keep cutting taxes, we'll magically have more revenue is insane.

That's exactly what has happened though.

The fact that the alt-lefties like you buy the notion that if we keep raising taxes, we'll magically jump start the economy and we'll magically have more revenue is what is insane.


They are the least responsible people when it comes to the economy. They're bankrupting the country and massively increasing inflation and income inequality all at the same time.

They are the 2nd least responsible people when it comes to the economy. The left is where the problem lies.

[Ashliana]

Republicans have been exploding our debt since the 1980s. The fact that people still buy the notion that if we keep cutting taxes, we'll magically have more revenue is insane.That's exactly what has happened though.

No. It isn't. It's what Republicans, with absolutely no basis in fact, have repeatedly asserted, yet utterly failed to demonstrate. Even the engineer of those original stupid claims has debunked this notion. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/09/28/i-helped-create-the-gop-tax-myth-trump-is-wrong-tax-cuts-dont-equal-growth/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9567872d1b42) The facts, as always, don't agree with you and your evidence-free religious stance.


The fact that the alt-lefties like you buy the notion that if we keep raising taxes, we'll magically jump start the economy and we'll magically have more revenue is what is insane.


This is two different claims:


"if we keep raising taxes, we'll magically jump start the economy"

This one's a straw man. Progressives argue that if wealth is shared more evenly, the economy as a whole will benefit. i.e., if incentives are made to corporations to pay workers more of the pie, instead of just funnelling that wealth upwards to executives and stock buybacks, the economy will benefit. Virtually every economist agrees with this notion -- that a wealthy middle class benefits the entire economy -- they just differ about how to best accomplish it.

Conservatives continue to be sold a fantasy (and continue to buy into it, without evidence) that the boon that the super-wealthy enjoy from having their taxes cut will magically trickle down to everyone else, despite the numerous times this has been attempted, with the only end result being the utter explosion of wealth at the top where those tax cuts were made, at the cost of enormous government deficits, and virtually no positive effect anywhere else.

Your second:


"if we keep raising taxes, we'll magically have more revenue is what is insane"

"If the government collects more tax, the government will have more money? That's insane!"

This is among the most retarded statements you've ever written, and you're probably tied for the most retarded person on this forum.

[Methais]

You're really stupid.

You're really correct.

[cwolff]

The good news is that we have a President who understands the American economic engine.


"Just run the presses — print money," Trump said, according to Woodward, during a discussion on the national debt with Gary Cohn, former director of the White House National Economic Council.

"You don't get to do it that way," Cohn said, according to Woodward. "We have huge deficits and they matter. The government doesn't keep a balance sheet like that."
Cohn was "astounded at Trump's lack of basic understanding," Woodward writes.

[Methais]

The good news is that we have a President who understands the American economic engine.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BCfN7B0ugU

[Tgo01]

Congress -- not the president -- controls the federal budget. Why did debt increase so much under Obama? Was it reckless spending policies implemented by Democrats? Whoops, nope. It's because the federal deficit was sky-high as Bush left office due to the recession that happened towards the end of nearly a decade of total GOP control of the government

Oh we're back to blaming congress for high deficits? Well good, since Reagan supposedly "started" the trend of exploding the debt we can rest the blame squarely on Democrats since Democrats controlled the house during his entire presidency and the senate during his last two years in office.

If Democrats showed some restraint in those days we wouldn't be dealing with ever increasing debt problems now! Thanks, Democrats!

[Tgo01]

The good news is that we have a President who understands the American economic engine.

You retards really will believe anything in print as long as it has an anti-Trump slant.

This is low even by cwolff standards.

[Methais]

You retards really will believe anything in print as long as it has an anti-Trump slant.

This is low even by cwolff standards.

Joke's on you, cwolff has no standards.

[Tgo01]

Joke's on you, cwolff has no standards.

A fact which becomes more clear with each passing day.

[Ashliana]

Oh we're back to blaming congress for high deficits? Well good, since Reagan supposedly "started" the trend of exploding the debt we can rest the blame squarely on Democrats since Democrats controlled the house during his entire presidency and the senate during his last two years in office.

Reagan is credited, appropriately, because the explosions in the deficit were his administration's priorities, and he saw them conceived, implemented and signed into law. Since you weren't old enough, weren't alive, or are outright lying about how his tax plans were passed, here's the NYT's 1981 reporting on the the ERTA's passage:

"The key vote, 238 to 195, gave Mr. Reagan a third upset victory over the Democratic House majority on fiscal issues. The President won by virtue of the same coalition of Republicans and Southern Democrats that brought him victory in May on the budget resolution and in June on the budget reconciliation bill."

That bill is credited with re-igniting the last part of the so-called "double dip recession," and the sponsoring Democrat ended up going to jail for corruption.

So no, at most, you could reasonably state that some Democrats were complicit with the Republican agenda that oversaw the explosion of federal debt under Reagan. Debt which, suddenly, Republicans cared about when Clinton was in office, which they should and do get some credit for, which they subsequently, spectacularly stopped caring about during George W. Bush's tenure.


If Democrats showed some restraint in those days we wouldn't be dealing with ever increasing debt problems now! Thanks, Democrats!

This is what a willfully ignorant imbecile would believe. Thus, absolutely nobody in the world is surprised that the words came from your proverbial lips.

[Tgo01]

Reagan is credited, appropriately, because the explosions in the deficit were his administration's priorities

I fucking love it.

"Don't you DARE blame my precious Obama! CONGRESS -- NOT THE PRESIDENT!!!!!!!! -- controls the federal budget."

Oh good, we can blame Democrats for exploding the debt under Reagan then.

"Don't you DARE blame my precious Democrats! Reagan gets the blame for exploding the debt because of his administration's priorities!"

You're right, Ashliana, I really should stop glossing over your nonsense. This shit is even better than cwolff's brand of mental retardation.

[Wrathbringer]

Reagan is credited, appropriately, because the explosions in the deficit were his administration's priorities, and he saw them conceived, implemented and signed into law. Since you weren't old enough, weren't alive, or are outright lying about how his tax plans were passed, here's the NYT's 1981 reporting on the the ERTA's passage:

"The key vote, 238 to 195, gave Mr. Reagan a third upset victory over the Democratic House majority on fiscal issues. The President won by virtue of the same coalition of Republicans and Southern Democrats that brought him victory in May on the budget resolution and in June on the budget reconciliation bill."

That bill is credited with re-igniting the last part of the so-called "double dip recession," and the sponsoring Democrat ended up going to jail for corruption.

So no, at most, you could reasonably state that some Democrats were complicit with the Republican agenda that oversaw the explosion of federal debt under Reagan. Debt which, suddenly, Republicans cared about when Clinton was in office, which they should and do get some credit for, which they subsequently, spectacularly stopped caring about during George W. Bush's tenure.



This is what a willfully ignorant imbecile would believe. Thus, absolutely nobody in the world is surprised that the words came from your proverbial lips.

You're retarded.

[Ashliana]

Your eyes may glaze over whenever your stupidity is corrected with details, but that willful ignorance is solely on you.I fucking love it.

"Don't you DARE blame my precious Obama! CONGRESS -- NOT THE PRESIDENT!!!!!!!! -- controls the federal budget."

Oh good, we can blame Democrats for exploding the debt under Reagan then.

"Don't you DARE blame my precious Democrats! Reagan gets the blame for exploding the debt because of his administration's priorities!"

You're right, Ashliana, I really should stop glossing over your nonsense. This shit is even better than cwolff's brand of mental retardation.

Thanks for proving me correct yet again. You're allergic to details, since your paper-thin argument falls apart when you examine them. "Democrats" didn't control Congress during Reagan's time -- A coalition composed mostly of Republicans, and a small minority of conservative, southern Democrats did.

Your allergy to facts is what makes you a retarded, low-information voter, but that remains solely your fault. Kudos, though, on focusing on whether you stupidly thought you had an argument -- Reagan's time -- while totally intellectually conceding the far greater issue, George W. Bush's tenure.

:clap:


You're retarded.

https://i.imgur.com/3XOZBE9.png

[Tgo01]

Thanks for proving me correct yet again. You're allergic to details

So let me get this straight. Obama can't possibly be held to blame for doubling the debt while he was president because congress controls the federal budget, but we can go ahead and pin the blame for Reagan exploding the debt because reasons? Tell me where I am misunderstanding your totally non-biased argument.

[Ashliana]

So let me get this straight. Obama can't possibly be held to blame for doubling the debt while he was president because congress controls the federal budget, but we can go ahead and pin the blame for Reagan exploding the debt because reasons? Tell me where I am misunderstanding your totally non-biased argument.

Both Reagan and George W. Bush had specific plans that their Congresses passed: Regressive tax cuts. Republicans, along with that minority of southern, conservative Democrats share the blame for going along with Reagan's ideas. George W. Bush's, however, you have solely the Republicans to blame.

Bush's 2001 tax cuts passed with 216 Republican votes for, 13 Democrats for to ZERO Republican votes against and 196 Democratic votes against.

Bush's 2003 tax cuts passed with 218 Republican votes for, 4 Democratic votes for to THREE Republican votes against and 199 Democratic votes against.

Those decisions -- particularly the post-Afghanistan invasion decision to further cut taxes during a time of war -- are the biggest reason for the exploding deficit.

The GOP had one-party control of the government for most of George W. Bush's tenure, and again, Greenspan, appointed by Reagan and chairman of the fed for two decades, oversaw the great recession.

Bush left office with record-setting deficits and a projected fiscal nightmare. Democrats are the ones -- and specifically Obama, who campaigned on the platform of ending the tax cuts for the rich -- who let the Bush tax cuts expire after the GOP repeatedly renewed them. They're the ones who, along with the newfound rediscovery of austerity among the Republicans, got the federal deficit under reasonable, pre-recession control.

Under control until...... Trump took office, upon which time it was to give a enormous, regressive tax break to the super-wealthy again.

Conservatives have absolutely zero credibility on the topic of fiscal responsibility. None. You threw it away, gleefully.

By all means, my reality-averse friend, try again. The devil's in the details, and you've demonstrated time and time and time and time again, you're absolutely allergic to them.

[Tgo01]

Both Reagan and George W. Bush had specific plans that their Congresses passed:

Okay, Ashliana, relax for a minute. Just tell me where I am misunderstanding your argument.

We can't blame Obama for the debt doubling while he was president because congress controls the federal budget.

We can blame Reagan and Bush for exploding the debt because reasons.

Just tell me where I am misunderstanding your argument.

Also who gets credit for the deficit doing really well while Clinton was president? Clinton or the Republicans who controlled congress for the majority of his time in office? Something tells me it's Clinton. Am I wrong?

[Wrathbringer]

Both Reagan and George W. Bush had specific plans that their Congresses passed: Regressive tax cuts. Republicans, along with that minority of southern, conservative Democrats share the blame for going along with Reagan's ideas. George W. Bush's, however, you have solely the Republicans to blame.

Bush's 2001 tax cuts passed with 216 Republican votes for, 13 Democrats for to ZERO Republican votes against and 196 Democratic votes against.

Bush's 2003 tax cuts passed with 218 Republican votes for, 4 Democratic votes for to THREE Republican votes against and 199 Democratic votes against.

Those decisions -- particularly the post-Afghanistan invasion decision to further cut taxes during a time of war -- are the biggest reason for the exploding deficit.

The GOP had one-party control of the government for most of George W. Bush's tenure, and again, Greenspan, appointed by Reagan and chairman of the fed for two decades, oversaw the great recession.

Bush left office with record-setting deficits and a projected fiscal nightmare. Democrats are the ones -- and specifically Obama, who campaigned on the platform of ending the tax cuts for the rich -- who let the Bush tax cuts expire after the GOP repeatedly renewed them. They're the ones who, along with the newfound rediscovery of austerity among the Republicans, got the federal deficit under reasonable, pre-recession control.

Under control until...... Trump took office, upon which time it was to give a enormous, regressive tax break to the super-wealthy again.

Conservatives have absolutely zero credibility on the topic of fiscal responsibility. None. You threw it away, gleefully.

By all means, my reality-averse friend, try again. The devil's in the details, and you've demonstrated time and time and time and time again, you're absolutely allergic to them.

You're absolutely retarded.

[Parkbandit]

You're absolutely retarded.

This is 100% correct.

[Fortybox]

The good news is that we have a President who understands the American economic engine.

Found soywolff working out:

https://media2.giphy.com/media/EzjCaYFnApVy8/giphy.webp

[Ashliana]

Okay, Ashliana, relax for a minute. Just tell me where I am misunderstanding your argument.

We can't blame Obama for the debt doubling while he was president because congress controls the federal budget.

The great recession occurred on George W. Bush's watch, after nearly a decade of GOP control of all parts of the government. Republicans ran on a platform of blowing up the budget -- Obama ran on one of ending the regressive tax cuts that Bush et. al engineered, and he succeeded, lowering the projected deficit back to pre-recession levels.

You do realize your inability to read reflects only on you, right?


We can blame Reagan and Bush for exploding the debt because reasons.

Just tell me where I am misunderstanding your argument.

That's correct. Specifically, because of those "reasons." Spoiler Alert: Stupidly summarizing the many reasons in which, yes, Reagan and Bush are to blame as "because reasons" only serves to show your disinterest in those reasons. At no point did you actually address those reasons themselves.


Also who gets credit for the deficit doing really well while Clinton was president? Clinton or the Republicans who controlled congress for the majority of his time in office? Something tells me it's Clinton. Am I wrong?

Again, your lack of reading reflects only on you -- Democrats, the ones who wear the big-boy pants and don't rely on magical "if I cut taxes, the government will have more taxes!" thinking, along with Republicans -- who only rediscover their interest in austerity while Democrats are in power, forgetting them as soon as they get power themselves are the ones who get credit.

Only, Republicans can't demonstrate that fiscal responsibility over time. Seeing as how they've utterly abandoned it repeatedly. Aren't they lucky that they have moronic, low-information supporters to do semantic somersaults because you can't be bothered to keep track of how much the government you put in power is spending?


You're absolutely retarded.

https://i.imgur.com/3XOZBE9.png

[Tgo01]

The great recession occurred on George W. Bush's watch, after nearly a decade of GOP control of all parts of the government. Republicans ran on a platform of blowing up the budget -- Obama ran on one of ending the regressive tax cuts that Bush et. al engineered, and he succeeded, lowering the projected deficit back to pre-recession levels.

That's correct. Specifically, because of those "reasons." Spoiler Alert: Stupidly summarizing the many reasons in which, yes, Reagan and Bush are to blame as "because reasons" only serves to show your disinterest in those reasons. At no point did you actually address those reasons themselves.

So, once again, just to be clear, your argument is we can't blame Obama for the debt doubling during his presidency because congress controls the federal budget but we can pin the blame on Reagan and Bush because of your stated reasons? This isn't me misconstruing anything you've said, this is literally your argument, correct?


Again, your lack of reading reflects only on you -- Democrats, the ones who wear the big-boy pants and don't rely on magical "if I cut taxes, the government will have more taxes!" thinking, along with Republicans -- who only rediscover their interest in austerity while Democrats are in power, forgetting them as soon as they get power themselves are the ones who get credit.

It was a simple question that only required a one word answer. Let me ask again: who gets credit for reducing the deficit during Clinton's presidency: Clinton or Republicans? Just one word answer please.

[Ashliana]

So, once again, just to be clear, your argument is we can't blame Obama for the debt doubling during his presidency because congress controls the federal budget but we can pin the blame on Reagan and Bush because of your stated reasons? This isn't me misconstruing anything you've said, this is literally your argument, correct?

Since you didn't read what I wrote, and instead repeated yourself, I'll do the same:

The great recession occurred on George W. Bush's watch, after nearly a decade of GOP control of all parts of the government. Republicans ran on a platform of blowing up the budget -- Obama ran on one of ending the regressive tax cuts that Bush et. al engineered, and he succeeded, lowering the projected deficit back to pre-recession levels.

Your refusal or inability to read reflects only on you.


It was a simple question that only required a one word answer. Let me ask again: who gets credit for reducing the deficit during Clinton's presidency: Clinton or Republicans? Just one word answer please.

As above, already asked and answered. And no, it wasn't a "simple question that only required a one word answer" simply because you stupidly said so. Your allergy to details is what defines you as a retarded, low-information Trump supporter, but is your problem, and nobody else's.

[Tgo01]

Since you didn't read what I wrote, and instead repeated yourself, I'll do the same

It's just a simple yes/no question. Yes I am stating your argument correctly, or no and explain what I got wrong. Am I asking too much?


And no, it wasn't a "simple question that only required a one word answer" simply because you stupidly said so.

It really is a question that only requires a one word answer. You can feel free to explain your answer but the question literally only requires a one word answer.

So, again, who gets credit: Clinton or Republicans?

[Neveragain]

~You do realize your inability to read reflects only on you, right?

~Stupidly summarizing

~Again, your lack of reading reflects only on you

~ Aren't they lucky that they have moronic, low-information supporters


https://i.imgur.com/3XOZBE9.png

https://media0.giphy.com/media/iAYupOdWXQy5a4nVGk/giphy.gif

[Ashliana]

It's just a simple yes/no question. Yes I am stating your argument correctly, or no and explain what I got wrong. Am I asking too much?

Repeating yourself doesn't make your response any less stupid.



It really is a question that only requires a one word answer. You can feel free to explain your answer but the question literally only requires a one word answer.

Your unilateral declaration that that question only requires a one-word answer is just that -- you, bloviating, because of your ongoing allergy to details.


So, again, who gets credit: Clinton or Republicans?

Already asked and answered. You didn't read it the last few times, so scroll up and try again.

[Wrathbringer]

Since you didn't read what I wrote, and instead repeated yourself, I'll do the same:

The great recession occurred on George W. Bush's watch, after nearly a decade of GOP control of all parts of the government. Republicans ran on a platform of blowing up the budget -- Obama ran on one of ending the regressive tax cuts that Bush et. al engineered, and he succeeded, lowering the projected deficit back to pre-recession levels.

Your refusal or inability to read reflects only on you.



As above, already asked and answered. And no, it wasn't a "simple question that only required a one word answer" simply because you stupidly said so. Your allergy to details is what defines you as a retarded, low-information Trump supporter, but is your problem, and nobody else's.

Repeating yourself doesn't make your response any less stupid. Retard. Lol@your rep

[Ashliana]

Repeating yourself doesn't make your response any less stupid. Retard. Lol@your rep

Spoken with the least self-awareness of anyone on the forum, says the guy who literally recycles the same 2 posts, endlessly, literally for years. Amazing.

[Wrathbringer]

Spoken with the least self-awareness of anyone on the forum, says the guy who literally recycles the same 2 posts, endlessly, literally for years. Amazing.

You're retarded.

[Methais]

Both Reagan and George W. Bush had specific plans that their Congresses passed: Regressive tax cuts. Republicans, along with that minority of southern, conservative Democrats share the blame for going along with Reagan's ideas. George W. Bush's, however, you have solely the Republicans to blame.

Bush's 2001 tax cuts passed with 216 Republican votes for, 13 Democrats for to ZERO Republican votes against and 196 Democratic votes against.

Bush's 2003 tax cuts passed with 218 Republican votes for, 4 Democratic votes for to THREE Republican votes against and 199 Democratic votes against.

Those decisions -- particularly the post-Afghanistan invasion decision to further cut taxes during a time of war -- are the biggest reason for the exploding deficit.

The GOP had one-party control of the government for most of George W. Bush's tenure, and again, Greenspan, appointed by Reagan and chairman of the fed for two decades, oversaw the great recession.

Bush left office with record-setting deficits and a projected fiscal nightmare. Democrats are the ones -- and specifically Obama, who campaigned on the platform of ending the tax cuts for the rich -- who let the Bush tax cuts expire after the GOP repeatedly renewed them. They're the ones who, along with the newfound rediscovery of austerity among the Republicans, got the federal deficit under reasonable, pre-recession control.

Under control until...... Trump took office, upon which time it was to give a enormous, regressive tax break to the super-wealthy again.

Conservatives have absolutely zero credibility on the topic of fiscal responsibility. None. You threw it away, gleefully.

By all means, my reality-averse friend, try again. The devil's in the details, and you've demonstrated time and time and time and time again, you're absolutely allergic to them.

Remember when democrats controlled the House, which is where spending bills originate, for all 8 years of Reagan's presidency?

[Ashliana]

You're retarded.

https://i.imgur.com/3XOZBE9.png


Remember when democrats controlled the House, which is where spending bills originate, for all 8 years of Reagan's presidency?

That's your simplified explanation that requires you be ignorant of the facts. As NYT reported in the 80's regarding Reagan's first tax cut that led to the "double dip" recession:

"The key vote, 238 to 195, gave Mr. Reagan a third upset victory over the Democratic House majority on fiscal issues. The President won by virtue of the same coalition of Republicans and Southern Democrats that brought him victory in May on the budget resolution and in June on the budget reconciliation bill."

Your lack of interest in details is basically what makes you a modern-day conservative. Absolutely nobody is surprised by it -- believing your position requires that you be willfully ignorant. Republicans, along with a minority of southern, conservative Democrats passed Reagan's nonsense. But, sure. "DEMOCRATS!!!shift+1!!," shit-for-brains ignoramus. Special kudos for, like Tgo, completely surrendering on the George W. Bush sprees which were far greater.

[Methais]

https://i.imgur.com/3XOZBE9.png



That's your simplified explanation that requires you be ignorant of the facts. As NYT reported in the 80's regarding Reagan's first tax cut that led to the "double dip" recession:

"The key vote, 238 to 195, gave Mr. Reagan a third upset victory over the Democratic House majority on fiscal issues. The President won by virtue of the same coalition of Republicans and Southern Democrats that brought him victory in May on the budget resolution and in June on the budget reconciliation bill."

Your lack of interest in details is basically what makes you a modern-day conservative. Absolutely nobody is surprised by it -- believing your position requires that you be willfully ignorant. Republicans, along with a minority of southern, conservative Democrats passed Reagan's nonsense. But, sure. "DEMOCRATS!!!shift+1!!," shit-for-brains ignoramus. Special kudos for, like Tgo, completely surrendering on the George W. Bush sprees which were far greater.

It's funny watching you and other idiots like you try so hard to sound smart and talk out of both sides of your mouth to paint the left as the bastion of all things good and pure and the right is Satan himself, but still fail miserably at it, all while being incapable of not continuing to sniff your own farts and still think you're the smartest person in every room you walk into.

People like you are why Trump won. I'm more anti-sjw /anti-leftist than I am pro-conservative. There's a lot of shit I disagree with the right about, but I still vote for them because your side really is that much worse.

Thanks for giving us Trump though. It's been entertaining as fuck watching you all cry and act like completely unhinged retards, just like you'll be doing for the next 6 years. Except none of you are acting, you're just unhinged retards for real.

https://media.giphy.com/media/9jEaPxN9eZWmI/giphy.gif

[Ashliana]

It's funny watching you and other idiots like you try so hard to sound smart and talk out of both sides of your mouth to paint the left as the bastion of all things good and pure and the right is Satan himself, but still fail miserably at it, all while being incapable of not continuing to sniff your own farts and still think you're the smartest person in every room you walk into.

Uh, no. The left doesn't have to be a "bastion of all things good and pure" in order for Republicans to be complete hypocrites on the subject of fiscal responsibility. The GOP only cares about the debt and the deficit when the Democrats are in power.

Your ignorance -- willful or otherwise -- about that fact reflects only on you. You not bothering to know what the party you blindly support does, not bothering to know how and when the government has borrowed most deeply, is your active choice to remain ignorant.

You exposed your reductionist, retarded way of thinking -- the details cause you to convulse, because you either don't have the brainpower to look at something that isn't simple, or refuse to dedicate it. Functionally, there's no difference. You remain ignorant.



People like you are why Trump won. I'm more anti-sjw /anti-leftist than I am pro-conservative. There's a lot of shit I disagree with the right about, but I still vote for them because your side really is that much worse.

Applying your ongoing desire for a reductionist explanation to Trump doesn't make your case, either. Trump won because the right has chosen over the last 20 years to give up the William F. Buckley style of defensible conservative argument, abandoned facts, in favor of Fox News and Breitbart-style tribalism. You're a prime example of their bet on the willfully ignorant masses. And beeteedubs, I'm an "anti-SJW" too (as was Obama). You don't care about reality.


Thanks for giving us Trump though. It's been entertaining as fuck watching you all cry and act like completely unhinged retards, just like you'll be doing for the next 6 years. Except none of you are acting, you're just unhinged retards for real.

Isn't it funny how you claim there's "lots of shit you disagree with," but never find yourself capable of criticizing Trump et. al and spend all your time shitting out apologetics for the hard right? It's been entertaining watching you and the other reactionaries on the forum act like completely unhinged retards as person after person in Trump's orbit is exposed, resigns in disgrace or gets indicted/convicted. And there's more to come, my willfully deluded friend.

[Wrathbringer]

Uh, no. The left doesn't have to be a "bastion of all things good and pure" in order for Republicans to be complete hypocrites on the subject of fiscal responsibility. The GOP only cares about the debt and the deficit when the Democrats are in power.

Your ignorance -- willful or otherwise -- about that fact reflects only on you. You not bothering to know what the party you blindly support does, not bothering to know how and when the government has borrowed most deeply, is your active choice to remain ignorant.

You exposed your reductionist, retarded way of thinking -- the details cause you to convulse, because you either don't have the brainpower to look at something that isn't simple, or refuse to dedicate it. Functionally, there's no difference. You remain ignorant.




Applying your ongoing desire for a reductionist explanation to Trump doesn't make your case, either. Trump won because the right has chosen over the last 20 years to give up the William F. Buckley style of defensible conservative argument, abandoned facts, in favor of Fox News and Breitbart-style tribalism. You're a prime example of their bet on the willfully ignorant masses. And beeteedubs, I'm an "anti-SJW" too (as was Obama). You don't care about reality.



Isn't it funny how you claim there's "lots of shit you disagree with," but never find yourself capable of criticizing Trump et. al and spend all your time shitting out apologetics for the hard right? It's been entertaining watching you and the other reactionaries on the forum act like completely unhinged retards as person after person in Trump's orbit is exposed, resigns in disgrace or gets indicted/convicted. And there's more to come, my willfully deluded friend.

TR;DR.

[Methais]

Uh, no. The left doesn't have to be a "bastion of all things good and pure" in order for Republicans to be complete hypocrites on the subject of fiscal responsibility. The GOP only cares about the debt and the deficit when the Democrats are in power.

Who out of anyone here has been arguing that republicans aren't hypocritical? The only ones arguing anything like that is you dumbasses trying to argue that your party isn't hypocritical. Everyone who isn't a complete tard knows that both parties suck and are full of shit. Yours is just 47832042x worse, and that really burns your ass which is why you get so triggered all the time.


Your ignorance -- willful or otherwise -- about that fact reflects only on you. You not bothering to know what the party you blindly support does, not bothering to know how and when the government has borrowed most deeply, is your active choice to remain ignorant.

I don't vote for republicans, I vote against democrats. Because most democrats are 4837204x worse than most republicans. This really makes your anus sore, which is why you always lash out and attempt to form other peoples' opinions for them and tell them how they think.


You exposed your reductionist, retarded way of thinking -- the details cause you to convulse, because you either don't have the brainpower to look at something that isn't simple, or refuse to dedicate it. Functionally, there's no difference. You remain ignorant.

If I didn't see a quote first, I'd think you were responding to yourself in response to your non-response of Tgo's simple Clinton or Republicans question. Because you're stupid and full of shit.


Applying your ongoing desire for a reductionist explanation to Trump doesn't make your case, either. Trump won because the right has chosen over the last 20 years to give up the William F. Buckley style of defensible conservative argument, abandoned facts, in favor of Fox News and Breitbart-style tribalism. You're a prime example of their bet on the willfully ignorant masses. And beeteedubs, I'm an "anti-SJW" too (as was Obama). You don't care about reality.

Is that why so many democrats stayed home on Election Day or voted for Johnson or Stein because they refused to vote for Hillary? Talk about being willfully ignorant and not caring about reality, holy fuck.

You're also anything but anti-sjw. Probably not as sjw as time4dildos, but you're up there.


Isn't it funny how you claim there's "lots of shit you disagree with," but never find yourself capable of criticizing Trump et. al and spend all your time shitting out apologetics for the hard right?

Most of my gripes with the right are about shit that doesn't affect my paycheck, i.e. "Weed is bad, the Bible is everything!" and other dumb shit like that. But it's still better than the shit your side sharts out all over the place like "You can be a unicorn and you also don't have to tell people you're fucking that you have AIDS and btw black people are too stupid to get an ID because you're racist!" and all that other dumbass diarrhea of the mouth nonsense you people are all about.


It's been entertaining watching you and the other reactionaries on the forum act like completely unhinged retards as person after person in Trump's orbit is exposed, resigns in disgrace or gets indicted/convicted. And there's more to come, my willfully deluded friend.

Except none of that is going to happen, and we're just going to keep laughing at you being an unhinged butthurt retard for another 6 years while you do your best to tell other people how they think and basically be Great Value time4fun while normal people continue to live their lives without being in a 24/7 triggered state like you.

You:
https://i.imgur.com/wu9ymbN.png

[Tgo01]

Repeating yourself doesn't make your response any less stupid.



Your unilateral declaration that that question only requires a one-word answer is just that -- you, bloviating, because of your ongoing allergy to details.



Already asked and answered. You didn't read it the last few times, so scroll up and try again.

It's okay, Ashliana. We all know what happened. You literally said we can't blame Obama for the debt because congress controls the federal budget. When I pointed out this means Democrats get most of the blame for the debt going up under Reagan you then proceeded to say it's okay to pin all of the blame on Reagan. You realized what a complete and utter moron you made yourself look like by completely contradicting yourself in two back to back postings.

Rather than just admit you made a mistake or you wanted to clarify your earlier positions you proceeded to ignore very basic questions, you attacked me for daring to ask you questions, and you deflected like your life depended on it. You then doubled down and blamed Bush for the debt increasing during his presidency and heavily implied Clinton deserves credit for the deficit going down on his watch.

So let's recap your positions:

Obama can't receive blame for debt doubling while president because congress controls the federal budget and he's a Democrat.
Reagan can receive all blame for debt going up while president because he's a Republican.
Bush can receive all blame for debt going up while president because he's a Republican.
Clinton deserves credit for deficit shrinking while president because he's a Democrat.

[Tgo01]

That's your simplified explanation that requires you be ignorant of the facts.

Speaking of "simplified explanations that requires one to be ignorant of the facts", remember when you said this:


Congress -- not the president -- controls the federal budget.

[Ashliana]

Who out of anyone here has been arguing that republicans aren't hypocritical? The only ones arguing anything like that is you dumbasses trying to argue that your party isn't hypocritical. Everyone who isn't a complete tard knows that both parties suck and are full of shit. Yours is just 47832042x worse, and that really burns your ass which is why you get so triggered all the time.

There's plenty of hypocrisy on the left. This started, specifically, because of Tgo's retarded claim about Obama, a frequent one that people like you, who have no interest in details, make. Republicans control all three branches of government and the only substantive thing they've done is give-aways to the hyper wealthy and let companies pollute however they want by administrative fiat, pulled out of trade relationships with allies that conservatives have supported for decades and damaged our relationship with every US ally. If that's a win for you, uhh, congrats?


I don't vote for republicans, I vote against democrats. Because most democrats are 4837204x worse than most republicans. This really makes your anus sore, which is why you always lash out and attempt to form other peoples' opinions for them and tell them how they think.

Eyeeeroll. Okay, buddy. And what, pray tell, makes you hate the negative qualities of the left while being totally okay with the innumerable negative qualities of the right?


If I didn't see a quote first, I'd think you were responding to yourself in response to your non-response of Tgo's simple Clinton or Republicans question. Because you're stupid and full of shit.

Whatever you say. You've consistently demonstrated the same kind of stupid, reductionist thinking that Tgo revels in.


Is that why so many democrats stayed home on Election Day or voted for Johnson or Stein because they refused to vote for Hillary? Talk about being willfully ignorant and not caring about reality, holy fuck.

I've never been a fan of Hillary, but your claim here is bogus. 65.9 million people voted for Obama in 2012 compared to 65.8 million for Hillary, a difference of 100k. The reason Trump won is because 3 million more people voted for Trump in 2016 than voted for Romney in 2012, and all other things were mostly equal.


You're also anything but anti-sjw. Probably not as sjw as time4dildos, but you're up there.

All you're doing here is showcasing that you don't know me. In what way am I an "SJW"? On the contrary, I think the majority of (outspoken, activist) feminists are retarded and hysterically shout over perceived inequality that doesn't exist, that Black Lives Matter obsesses over cases where the police, in fact, did absolutely nothing wrong (and that despite the many problems with the criminal justice system, moustache-twirling racists who irrationally hate and set out to murder black people don't exist), believe that the answer to all speech is more speech, not less, absolutely oppose deplatforming efforts, even of shitstains like Milo Yiannopoulos, etc. I always considered myself a libertarian until the right completely sold its soul to the religious right.

By all means, please point out in what way I'm "an SJW." Because I support women's reproductive rights? Nope -- libertarian philosophy there. Gay rights? Libertarian philosophy.


Most of my gripes with the right are about shit that doesn't affect my paycheck, i.e. "Weed is bad, the Bible is everything!" and other dumb shit like that. But it's still better than the shit your side sharts out all over the place like "You can be a unicorn and you also don't have to tell people you're fucking that you have AIDS and btw black people are too stupid to get an ID because you're racist!" and all that other dumbass diarrhea of the mouth nonsense you people are all about.

I think people who make claims like "you shouldn't have to disclose medical facts" are retarded, including trans people (whose equality I support) that claim they shouldn't be even morally obligated to tell people they're trans prior to sleeping with them. You are, however, absolutely retarded if you believe Republicans haven't repeatedly tried to suppress the minority vote through their obsession on nonexistent "voter fraud."




Except none of that is going to happen, and we're just going to keep laughing at you being an unhinged butthurt retard for another 6 years while you do your best to tell other people how they think and basically be Great Value time4fun while normal people continue to live their lives without being in a 24/7 triggered state like you.

Have you been living in a bubble for the last few months? I mean, yes, you live in an ideological bubble, but in this case a literal one? Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer have both been convicted, as have others campaign participants. You're incredibly dumb if you think the 2016 story has a happy ending for the Trump clan.

[Ashliana]

It's okay, Ashliana. We all know what happened. You literally said we can't blame Obama for the debt because congress controls the federal budget. When I pointed out this means Democrats get most of the blame for the debt going up under Reagan you then proceeded to say it's okay to pin all of the blame on Reagan. You realized what a complete and utter moron you made yourself look like by completely contradicting yourself in two back to back postings.

Wrong. I said:


Why did debt increase so much under Obama? Was it reckless spending policies implemented by Democrats? Whoops, nope. It's because the federal deficit was sky-high as Bush left office due to the recession that happened towards the end of nearly a decade of total GOP control of the government, when they saw fit to start two unfunded wars while simultaneously cutting taxes on the wealthy, followed by bailouts of banks first under Bush, then another under Obama.

Dubya and the GOP left Obama holding the purse for the fiscal outcome they engineered. Obama ran on the platform of reversing the trend and successfully implemented it. He did the responsible thing. Nobody's contradicting oneself-- you just have the reading comprehension of a four year old and can't read anything that isn't a Twitter-style sound bite.


Rather than just admit you made a mistake or you wanted to clarify your earlier positions you proceeded to ignore very basic questions, you attacked me for daring to ask you questions, and you deflected like your life depended on it. You then doubled down and blamed Bush for the debt increasing during his presidency and heavily implied Clinton deserves credit for the deficit going down on his watch.

Wrong. You desperately tried to reduce the reality into a sound bite, which isn't how reality works. You've subsequently thrown a temper tantrum because you have absolutely no rebuttal to the reality that when Republicans take power, they abandon all fiscal principles and spend like drunkards.

Clinton deserves some of the credit for fixing the fiscal issues, and Republicans from his era enjoy some of the credit - except they turned around and exploded the deficit and debt, proving themselves hypocrites who abandon their principles whenever they get the chance, as I already said.

Your desire to sum up an issue in three words doesn't constitute a rational argument -- it makes you retarded.


So let's recap your positions:

Obama can't receive blame for debt doubling while president because congress controls the federal budget and he's a Democrat.
Reagan can receive all blame for debt going up while president because he's a Republican.
Bush can receive all blame for debt going up while president because he's a Republican.
Clinton deserves credit for deficit shrinking while president because he's a Democrat.

Obama and the Democrats of that period, along with Republicans who suddenly, magically cared about fiscal responsibility as soon as a Democrat was in power, deserve credit. He campaigned on the platform of repealing the tax cuts.

Reagan deserves most of the blame, as he campaigned on the platform of cutting taxes for the wealthy. The minority of conservative, southern Democrats also deserves blame.

Dubya and the Republicans, deserve almost all of the blame for both the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, which were almost unanimously passed by Republicans and almost unanimously opposed by Democrats, the second of which took place during a war.

Clinton and the Democrats of that period, along with Republicans who suddenly, magically cared about fiscal responsibility as soon as a Democrat was in power, deserve credit.

Seeing the pattern of how conservatives forget their principles when they take power? No? That would be because you didn't bother to read, you're willfully ignorant of modern history, and you're retarded.



Congress -- not the president -- controls the federal budget.Speaking of "simplified explanations that requires one to be ignorant of the facts", remember when you said this:

If only that hadn't been followed by context and details. Those things you're allergic to.

Try again, buckaroo.

[Tgo01]

Wrong. I said:

You literally said Obama isn't responsible for the debt because congress controls the federal budget. You then proceeded to say presidents CAN be responsible for the debt as long as they are Republicans.

These are your words. These are your arguments. Don't get pissed at me for pointing out how utterly retarded you sound right now.

[Ashliana]

You literally said Obama isn't responsible for the debt because congress controls the federal budget. You then proceeded to say presidents CAN be responsible for the debt as long as they are Republicans.

These are your words. These are your arguments. Don't get pissed at me for pointing out how utterly retarded you sound right now.

Your inability to read reflects only on you.

"You then proceeded to say presidents CAN be responsible for the debt as long as they are Republicans."

That right there is your retarded, detail-averse, fourth grade level reading comprehension at work. Nothing else.

[Tgo01]

Your inability to read reflects only on you.

"You then proceeded to say presidents CAN be responsible for the debt as long as they are Republicans."

That right there is your retarded, detail-averse, fourth grade level reading comprehension at work. Nothing else.

Your words:

Obama (Democrat) can't be responsible because he's the president and congress controls federal spending.
Reagan and Bush (both Republican presidents) can be held responsible because of reasons.

Again these are your words. These are your arguments. Here's a tip if you don't want people to call you retarded; stop posting retarded shit.

[Ashliana]

Your words:

Obama (Democrat) can't be responsible because he's the president and congress controls federal spending.
Reagan and Bush (both Republican presidents) can be held responsible because of reasons.

Again these are your words. These are your arguments. Here's a tip if you don't want people to call you retarded; stop posting retarded shit.

Your inability to read reflects only on you. You can insist (X) equals (Y) and red equals orange until the cows come home. It doesn't turn your retarded ramblings into a reasoned position -- your position requires that you be willfully ignorant.

Try again, buckaroo.

[Wrathbringer]

Your inability to read reflects only on you. You can insist (X) equals (Y) and red equals orange until the cows come home. It doesn't turn your retarded ramblings into a reasoned position -- your position requires that you be willfully ignorant.

Try again, buckaroo.

u r dumb

[Parkbandit]

Your inability to read reflects only on you. You can insist (X) equals (Y) and red equals orange until the cows come home. It doesn't turn your retarded ramblings into a reasoned position -- your position requires that you be willfully ignorant.

Try again, buckaroo.

Why not just tell him where he's wrong? Show him you're the bigger "man" and help him understand why you honestly believe that only Republican Presidents can be held responsible for deficits and Democrat Presidents are just victims of the mean Republican controlled Congress...

[Ashliana]

Why not just tell him where he's wrong? Show him you're the bigger "man" and help him understand why you honestly believe that only Republican Presidents can be held responsible for deficits and Democrat Presidents are just victims of the mean Republican controlled Congress...

I know, PB. Facts hurt your pea-sized brain, don't they? It's okay -- you outsourced that function decades ago.

[Parkbandit]

I know, PB. Facts hurt your pea-sized brain, don't they? It's okay -- you outsourced that function decades ago.

I've let it be known for quite some time.. I have a major personal flaw: I have no patience for abject stupidity. Ignorance is one thing.. but real solid stupidity that comes from years and years of just being stupid to be stupid.. yea, can't deal with it.

It's why you and I have never gotten along. I just have no patience with a retarded drama queen who is uncomfortable in his own skin so he comes to the Internet to roleplay something different than he is.

Sorry.

I know when I asked you to stand up and be a bigger man was something you couldn't possibly do though.

[Ashliana]

I've let it be known for quite some time.. I have a major personal flaw: I have no patience for abject stupidity. Ignorance is one thing.. but real solid stupidity that comes from years and years of just being stupid to be stupid.. yea, can't deal with it.

It's why you and I have never gotten along. I just have no patience with a retarded drama queen who is uncomfortable in his own skin so he comes to the Internet to roleplay something different than he is.

Sorry.

I know when I asked you to stand up and be a bigger man was something you couldn't possibly do though.

You have endless patience for abject stupidity -- The fact that you've endured your own stupidity every day of your sixty plus years on this planet while maintaining your allergy to facts is impressive -- that you've managed to navigate all the pitfalls of knowledge and even basic facts of events that occurred in your lifetime.

Kudos, though, on the cringe-inducing hypocrisy of attacking someone on the basis of being a roleplayer on a forum dedicated to a roleplaying game that you literally play with the other person and the projection it took to accuse someone of being "uncomfortable in their own skin" despite your known obsession with sending other men angry, sexually graphic messages anonymously on the Internet.

You are the personification of willful ignorance and impotent rage itself.

[Parkbandit]

You have endless patience for abject stupidity -- The fact that you've endured your own stupidity every day of your sixty plus years on this planet while maintaining your allergy to facts is impressive -- that you've managed to navigate all the pitfalls of knowledge and even basic facts of events that occurred in your lifetime.

Did you really just use all those words to disguise your fantastic comeback of "I know you are but what am I"?

Stop the stupidity.


Kudos, though, on the cringe-inducing hypocrisy of attacking someone on the basis of being a roleplayer on a forum dedicated to a roleplaying game that you literally play with the other person and the projection it took to accuse someone of being "uncomfortable in their own skin" despite your known obsession with sending other men angry, sexually graphic messages anonymously on the Internet.

You are the personification of willful ignorance and impotent rage itself.

Only you think someone calling you a "cocksnorkling loser" is "sexually graphic". Most guys believe that to be an insult... you take it as a turn on.

Now.. go look in the mirror again and cry some more.

[Ashliana]

Did you really just use all those words to disguise your fantastic comeback of "I know you are but what am I"?

Stop the stupidity.

Lack of self-awareness level: Off the charts. In other words, standard Republican level.



Only you think someone calling you a "cocksnorkling loser" is "sexually graphic". Most guys believe that to be an insult... you take it as a turn on.

Now.. go look in the mirror again and cry some more.

As a 50 year old, you spent countless hours over more than a decade-long period anonymously sending numerous other men, angry, sexualized imagery full of your trademarked impotent rage. You are, by far, the biggest loser on this forum. Bigger than IorakeWarhammer, bigger than Warclaid, Solkern, etc.

[SHAFT]

As a 50 year old, you spent countless hours over more than a decade-long period anonymously sending numerous other men, angry, sexualized imagery full of your trademarked impotent rage. You are, by far, the biggest loser on this forum. Bigger than IorakeWarhammer, bigger than Warclaid, Solkern, etc.

Damn

[cwolff]

Damn

Ash has been over here giving a master class in owning trolls. Witty, informative and scathing.

[SHAFT]

Just be careful in your efforts to own trolls, you don't end up becoming one yourself...

[Tgo01]

As a 50 year old, you spent countless hours over more than a decade-long period anonymously sending numerous other men, angry, sexualized imagery full of your trademarked impotent rage. You are, by far, the biggest loser on this forum.

"Countless hours"? You must be a hunt and pecker.

[Parkbandit]

Lack of self-awareness level: Off the charts. In other words, standard Republican level.

Irony.


As a 50 year old, you spent countless hours over more than a decade-long period anonymously sending numerous other men, angry, sexualized imagery full of your trademarked impotent rage. You are, by far, the biggest loser on this forum. Bigger than IorakeWarhammer, bigger than Warclaid, Solkern, etc.

You keep using "sexualized" in the wrong way.

This might be one of the many, many reasons why you look in the mirror and start crying.

[Parkbandit]

"Countless hours"? You must be a hunt and pecker.

Watch out.. It might consider that sexualized messages towards It.

[Ashliana]

Did you really just use all those words to disguise your fantastic comeback of "I know you are but what am I"?Lack of self-awareness level: Off the charts. In other words, standard Republican level.Irony.

It'd be funny if you weren't being unintentionally retarded instead of just moronic for effect like you normally do.


You keep using "sexualized" in the wrong way.

Spoiler Alert: You not understanding something (or pretending to) doesn't constitute an argument. As a fifty-year old, you spent over a decade sending other men angry, sexualized fantasies anonymously over the Internet. You can whine and bitch and moan all you want -- nothing you say here erases your actions. You've already established yourself as the most pathetic, desperate and deluded imbecile on the forum.


This might be one of the many, many reasons why you look in the mirror and start crying.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define%3Aprojection

[Wrathbringer]

It'd be funny if you weren't being unintentionally retarded instead of just moronic for effect like you normally do.



Spoiler Alert: You not understanding something (or pretending to) doesn't constitute an argument. As a fifty-year old, you spent over a decade sending other men angry, sexualized fantasies anonymously over the Internet. You can whine and bitch and moan all you want -- nothing you say here erases your actions. You've already established yourself as the most pathetic, desperate and deluded imbecile on the forum.



http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define%3Aprojection

lol @ your rep

[Wrathbringer]

Watch out.. It might consider that sexualized messages towards It.

:lol:

[Parkbandit]

It'd be funny if you weren't being unintentionally retarded instead of just moronic for effect like you normally do.

Says the retarded moron. Seriously, stop. cwolff already has a title defense coming up. No matter how stupid you are trying to be, you aren't ready for that. You need higher quantity, though your quality is right down there where it should be. Step up your game.


Spoiler Alert: You not understanding something (or pretending to) doesn't constitute an argument. As a fifty-year old, you spent over a decade sending other men angry, sexualized fantasies anonymously over the Internet. You can whine and bitch and moan all you want -- nothing you say here erases your actions. You've already established yourself as the most pathetic, desperate and deluded imbecile on the forum.

I understand it perfectly. You think when I call you a piece of shit, you see a sexualized message. When I say you are nothing but a pathetic, cock smoking retard.. you see a sexualized message.

What you are not understanding is: No one else views that as a sexualized fantasy message. Only you and your strange creepy fetish self does.


http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define%3Aprojection

Your link didn't work.. try this one: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=pretending+to+be+someone+else+online+disorder

[Ashliana]

Says the retarded moron. Seriously, stop. cwolff already has a title defense coming up. No matter how stupid you are trying to be, you aren't ready for that. You need higher quantity, though your quality is right down there where it should be. Step up your game.

There's a reason why virtually nothing you say relates to any conversation at hand. You've spent the last 15 years demonstrating that you couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag -- because you're an ignorant hick who doesn't know anything and can't even keep the GOP talking points that the other conservatives on the board actually bother to remember.

You embarrass yourself every time you ineptly try to call someone out.


I understand it perfectly. You think when I call you a piece of shit, you see a sexualized message. When I say you are nothing but a pathetic, cock smoking retard.. you see a sexualized message.

What you are not understanding is: No one else views that as a sexualized fantasy message. Only you and your strange creepy fetish self does.

As a 50 year old man, you spent countless hours over the course of more than a decade sending other men angry, sexualized fantasies full of your trademarked impotent rage.

You are a complete sociopath. You badly need psychiatric care.

You might have deluded yourself -- like Trump, whom you voted for constantly does -- that blindly insisting you didn't do something that everybody can pull up and view the record of somehow didn't happen, but unfortunately for both you and Trump, you don't have the power to magically warp reality to suit your delusions.


Your link didn't work.. try this one

Sixty years on this planet and you still don't know how to use the Internet. Poor thing. Let me know when you finally realize the retardation of ineptly trying to attack someone on the basis of roleplaying ... on a game dedicated to a roleplaying forum ... that you've spent more than 15 years of your life on.

[Fortybox]

As a 50 year old, you spent countless hours over more than a decade-long period anonymously sending numerous other men, angry, sexualized imagery full of your trademarked impotent rage. You are, by far, the biggest loser on this forum. Bigger than IorakeWarhammer, bigger than Warclaid, Solkern, etc.

You really do have zero self awareness.

The word counts in your posts rival Stumplickers so I wouldn't be bashing anyone on this forum about spending countless hours on this forum.

1 Ashliana Post = 9,272 Parkbandit posts

[Ashliana]

You really do have zero self awareness.

The word counts in your posts rival Stumplickers so I wouldn't be bashing anyone on this forum about spending countless hours on this forum.

1 Ashliana Post = 9,272 Parkbandit posts

He isn't being bashed on the basis of spending time on this forum. He's being called out for spending countless hours on this forum dedicated to sending other men angry, sexualized fantasies anonymously. I know you're stupid -- even for someone still supporting Trump in September 2018 -- but it's amazing that this has to be pointed out to you.

And, uhh, even if you were talking about his "regular" posting compared to mine, he's averaged almost as many posts per year as I've posted in totality. His derangement certainly is prolific, if nothing else.

[Wrathbringer]

He isn't being bashed on the basis of spending time on this forum. He's being called out for spending countless hours on this forum dedicated to sending other men angry, sexualized fantasies anonymously. I know you're stupid -- even for someone still supporting Trump in September 2018 -- but it's amazing that this has to be pointed out to you.

And, uhh, even if you were talking about his "regular" posting compared to mine, he's averaged almost as many posts per year as I've posted in totality. His derangement certainly is prolific, if nothing else.

u r ghey

[SHAFT]

He isn't being bashed on the basis of spending time on this forum. He's being called out for spending countless hours on this forum dedicated to sending other men angry, sexualized fantasies anonymously. I know you're stupid -- even for someone still supporting Trump in September 2018 -- but it's amazing that this has to be pointed out to you.

And, uhh, even if you were talking about his "regular" posting compared to mine, he's averaged almost as many posts per year as I've posted in totality. His derangement certainly is prolific, if nothing else.

Damn!

[Fortybox]

Says the Parkbandit alt account.

https://media.giphy.com/media/gzQ1X1Fk25UwE/giphy.gif

[Methais]

Says the Parkbandit alt account.

Says the Parkbandit alt alt account.

[Parkbandit]

There's a reason why virtually nothing you say relates to any conversation at hand. You've spent the last 15 years demonstrating that you couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag -- because you're an ignorant hick who doesn't know anything and can't even keep the GOP talking points that the other conservatives on the board actually bother to remember.

There's a reason why you are unable to follow a conversation.. because every single conversation with you SOMEHOW goes back to "I'm a fag and I'm the real victim here!"

99.99% of all conversations here aren't about being gay.. yet, inevitably, you try to make them about it.

We get it! YOU ARE GAY!

Spoiler: Only you care about it.


You embarrass yourself every time you ineptly try to call someone out.

The only embarrassing thing here is you.


As a 50 year old man, you spent countless hours over the course of more than a decade sending other men angry, sexualized fantasies full of your trademarked impotent rage.

You are a complete sociopath. You badly need psychiatric care.

Again... we get it.


You might have deluded yourself -- like Trump, whom you voted for constantly does -- that blindly insisting you didn't do something that everybody can pull up and view the record of somehow didn't happen, but unfortunately for both you and Trump, you don't have the power to magically warp reality to suit your delusions.

You still don't get it.

I never said I didn't do something. I've probably called you a fag, queer, homo, pussy, fudge packer, cock snorkler, retard, ass bandit, butthole engineer, cockpipe cosmonaut, donut puncher, faggot, fairy, flamer, limp wristed, fruitcake, pansy, pillow biter, sausage jockey, turd burglar, drag queen, twink, whooly rhino, ass muncher, brownie queen, etc....

The thing you can't understand that none of those times I called you this was I trying to hit on you. Sometimes when someone calls you a fruit poof.. they aren't doing so to ask you out. I'm not sure who damaged you this badly.. but I'd like to thank them since you probably deserved it.


Sixty years on this planet and you still don't know how to use the Internet. Poor thing. Let me know when you finally realize the retardation of ineptly trying to attack someone on the basis of roleplaying ... on a game dedicated to a roleplaying forum ... that you've spent more than 15 years of your life on.

Difference is: I don't roleplay on a forum trying to be something I'm not... "Ashliana"... the pretty, pretty little girl and not the ugly, hairy man beast you really are :(

[Parkbandit]

You really do have zero self awareness.

The word counts in your posts rival Stumplickers so I wouldn't be bashing anyone on this forum about spending countless hours on this forum.

1 Ashliana Post = 9,272 Parkbandit posts

Lies

[Parkbandit]

Says the Parkbandit alt alt account.

I couldn't even pretend to be that stupid.

Reported for being too mean.

[Methais]

I couldn't even pretend to be that stupid.

Reported for being too mean.

:(

[Ashliana]

There's a reason why you are unable to follow a conversation.. because every single conversation with you SOMEHOW goes back to "I'm a fag and I'm the real victim here!"

99.99% of all conversations here aren't about being gay.. yet, inevitably, you try to make them about it.

We get it! YOU ARE GAY!

Spoiler: Only you care about it.

Spoiler Alert: You merely demonstrated here, like you do in every thread, that you can't discuss whatever's going on, because you're an ignorant hick who knows absolutely nothing about whatever the topic is. You're a deluded imbecile.



The only embarrassing thing here is you.


Did you really just use all those words to disguise your fantastic comeback of "I know you are but what am I"?

Your stupidity speaks for itself.


Again... we get it.

You're correct, for once. Everyone does get that you badly need psychiatric care.


You still don't get it.

I never said I didn't do something.

Yes. You have. You've denied going on your demented, decade-plus long spree of sending angry, sexualized fantasies to other men anonymously over the Internet, instead pretending that you merely said things along the lines of "you're a piece of shit."

Denying what you've done doesn't magically change reality, no matter how many times you retardedly insist. Your history is there for everybody to see, and you were exposed as severely mentally ill.


I've probably called you a fag, queer, homo, pussy, fudge packer, cock snorkler, retard, ass bandit, butthole engineer, cockpipe cosmonaut, donut puncher, faggot, fairy, flamer, limp wristed, fruitcake, pansy, pillow biter, sausage jockey, turd burglar, drag queen, twink, whooly rhino, ass muncher, brownie queen, etc....

The thing you can't understand that none of those times I called you this was I trying to hit on you. Sometimes when someone calls you a fruit poof.. they aren't doing so to ask you out. I'm not sure who damaged you this badly.. but I'd like to thank them since you probably deserved it.

Nope. You didn't just stick to basic insults -- you spent countless hours spending countless other men detailed, sexual imagery rooted in your impotent rage. Misrepresenting your actions doesn't actually change your actions, again, because you don't have the magical power to erase or change history. Similarly, sending people your sexual fantasies doesn't equal "hitting on them." I know you're mind-blowingly retarded, but this is "quick, check and see if the 70 year old man has had a stroke" level stupidity on your part here.


Difference is: I don't roleplay on a forum trying to be something I'm not... "Ashliana"... the pretty, pretty little girl and not the ugly, hairy man beast you really are :(

There is no "difference," because you can't showcase a simple example of me ever trying to do that. You, like the orange monkey you voted for, seem to think that making an assertion -- without evidence -- somehow magically warps reality to make it true.

Spoiler Alert: It doesn't. Just like Trump, you are an absolute laughingstock, the personification of intellectual dishonesty and an inability or unwillingness to think.

[Wrathbringer]

Spoiler Alert: You merely demonstrated here, like you do in every thread, that you can't discuss whatever's going on, because you're an ignorant hick who knows absolutely nothing about whatever the topic is. You're a deluded imbecile.






Your stupidity speaks for itself.



You're correct, for once. Everyone does get that you badly need psychiatric care.



Yes. You have. You've denied going on your demented, decade-plus long spree of sending angry, sexualized fantasies to other men anonymously over the Internet, instead pretending that you merely said things along the lines of "you're a piece of shit."

Denying what you've done doesn't magically change reality, no matter how many times you retardedly insist. Your history is there for everybody to see, and you were exposed as severely mentally ill.



Nope. You didn't just stick to basic insults -- you spent countless hours spending countless other men detailed, sexual imagery rooted in your impotent rage. Misrepresenting your actions doesn't actually change your actions, again, because you don't have the magical power to erase or change history. Similarly, sending people your sexual fantasies doesn't equal "hitting on them." I know you're mind-blowingly retarded, but this is "quick, check and see if the 70 year old man has had a stroke" level stupidity on your part here.



There is no "difference," because you can't showcase a simple example of me ever trying to do that. You, like the orange monkey you voted for, seem to think that making an assertion -- without evidence -- somehow magically warps reality to make it true.

Spoiler Alert: It doesn't. Just like Trump, you are an absolute laughingstock, the personification of intellectual dishonesty and an inability or unwillingness to think.

TR;DR.

[Tgo01]

I think Ashliana is even too retarded for the trio of dumbasses. I didn't even think that was possible.

[Neveragain]

donut puncher

https://media1.tenor.com/images/03a73afb6523f7e3536afbca880a7711/tenor.gif?itemid=5822761

[Astray]

She's very angry, I've noticed.

[Wrathbringer]

She's very angry, I've noticed.

:lol: Yes, It is.

[Fortybox]

I think Ashliana is even too retarded for the trio of dumbasses. I didn't even think that was possible.

Can't they just all share the crown?

[Astray]

Can't they just all share the crown?

That right there is why we have participation trophies.

[Fortybox]

That right there is why we have participation trophies.

:lol:

[Tgo01]

Can't they just all share the crown?

There can be only one!

[Fortybox]

There can be only one!

Time for some Queen:


https://youtu.be/VEJ8lpCQbyw

[Parkbandit]

She's very angry, I've noticed.

OMGOMGOMGOMGOMG!! YOU THOUGHT IT WAS A SHE!

You just made It's night...

[Parkbandit]

fairy dust flying all over the place...

Jesus...

You really, really, really need some help.

But don't get any.. I hope you just remain a miserable freak and go through the rest of your life really believing that anyone who calls you a retarded cock smoker is somehow hitting on you and trying to get your attention.

It makes it more entertaining for the rest of us.

Thank you.

[Parkbandit]

I think Ashliana is even too retarded for the trio of dumbasses. I didn't even think that was possible.

It's in a category all by itself.

Remember.. It's the only one to be caught, replying to another account of It's.

It probably has some special conversations with itself....

[Parkbandit]

PK are you just wraithbringer with more words? Basically your responses amount to r u ghey or are you retarded?

Must be tough being an imbecile.

I wouldn't know. Can you tell us about your struggle?

[Geijon]

Must be tough living on $3 day. Just enough to post here and keep your internet alive. Times are tough.

[Parkbandit]

Must be tough living on $3 day. Just enough to post here and keep your internet alive. Times are tough.

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/2/24/Funny_wtf_cat.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20090211025621

So, now I'm old and poor?

Did you go to the Androidpk School of Really Bad Insults?

[Ashliana]

Jesus...

You really, really, really need some help.

But don't get any.. I hope you just remain a miserable freak and go through the rest of your life really believing that anyone who calls you a retarded cock smoker is somehow hitting on you and trying to get your attention.

It makes it more entertaining for the rest of us.

Thank you.

Doubling down on your denial still doesn't change reality, though it was funny to see you go "NO DENIAL! YOU'RE THE DENIAL!" before getting blown out and being totally unable to respond to it. No matter how many times you insist, you haven't magically gained the power to warp reality.

Try again.

[Parkbandit]

Doubling down on your denial still doesn't change reality, though it was funny to see you go "NO DENIAL! YOU'RE THE DENIAL!" before getting blown out and being totally unable to respond to it. No matter how many times you insist, you haven't magically gained the power to warp reality.

Try again.

Could you quote me saying I denied calling you a raging homo?

Or are we arguing about stuff you've created in your very confused mind again?

Also: You forgot to post your "sending angry, sexualized fantasies to other men anonymously over the Internet" tagline.

[Ashliana]

Could you quote me saying I denied calling you a raging homo?

Or are we arguing about stuff you've created in your very confused mind again?

Also: You forgot to post your "sending angry, sexualized fantasies to other men anonymously over the Internet" tagline.

Tripling down still doesn't change reality. Much to your obvious dismay, the screeds that exposed you as mentally ill weren't just you calling someone "a raging homo." You spent countless hours of your life dreaming up angry, sexualized fantasies to other men anonymously over the Internet. As a fifty year old. And continued to do so for a decade. (You're welcome).

Try again, buckaroo.

[Parkbandit]

Tripling down still doesn't change reality. Much to your obvious dismay, the screeds that exposed you as mentally ill weren't just you calling someone "a raging homo." You spent countless hours of your life dreaming up angry, sexualized fantasies to other men anonymously over the Internet. As a fifty year old. And continued to do so for a decade. (You're welcome).

Try again, buckaroo.

So.. you can't.

Shocker.

PS - Thank you for adding your tagline as directed.

[Methais]

Spoiler Alert: You merely demonstrated here, like you do in every thread, that you can't discuss whatever's going on, because you're an ignorant hick who knows absolutely nothing about whatever the topic is. You're a deluded imbecile.






Your stupidity speaks for itself.



You're correct, for once. Everyone does get that you badly need psychiatric care.



Yes. You have. You've denied going on your demented, decade-plus long spree of sending angry, sexualized fantasies to other men anonymously over the Internet, instead pretending that you merely said things along the lines of "you're a piece of shit."

Denying what you've done doesn't magically change reality, no matter how many times you retardedly insist. Your history is there for everybody to see, and you were exposed as severely mentally ill.



Nope. You didn't just stick to basic insults -- you spent countless hours spending countless other men detailed, sexual imagery rooted in your impotent rage. Misrepresenting your actions doesn't actually change your actions, again, because you don't have the magical power to erase or change history. Similarly, sending people your sexual fantasies doesn't equal "hitting on them." I know you're mind-blowingly retarded, but this is "quick, check and see if the 70 year old man has had a stroke" level stupidity on your part here.



There is no "difference," because you can't showcase a simple example of me ever trying to do that. You, like the orange monkey you voted for, seem to think that making an assertion -- without evidence -- somehow magically warps reality to make it true.

Spoiler Alert: It doesn't. Just like Trump, you are an absolute laughingstock, the personification of intellectual dishonesty and an inability or unwillingness to think.

TLDR: Ashliana is turned on by gay insults and considers them to be sexual advances

[Methais]

Can't they just all share the crown?

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sj3B-dZd_-g/WKjATMenUxI/AAAAAAAAIsc/djI753XoY7oFIpPnFySjmcxHENlc2l2CACLcB/s1600/only-one.gif

[Methais]

PK are you just wraithbringer with more words? Basically your responses amount to r u ghey or are you retarded?

Must be tough being an imbecile.

PK = Androidpk

PB = Parkbandit


If you're still confused, let me know.

Or are you trying to be a hipster?

[Gelston]

PK = Androidpk

PB = Parkbandit


If you're still confused, let me know.

Or are you trying to be a hipster?

ParKbandit, duh.

[Ashliana]

So.. you can't.

Shocker.

PS - Thank you for adding your tagline as directed.

Ashliana: You left a slew of angry, sexualized messages to other men anonymously on the Internet.
Parkbandit: Claim 1: "I called you a piece of shit." Claim 2: "I called you a raging homo."
Ashliana: No. Denying what you said, bullshitting that you only left messages like "you piece of shit" doesn't magically change reality. You left a slew of angry, sexualized messages to other men anonymously on the Internet.
Parkbandit: I DIDN'T DENY ANYTHING!
Ashliana: You denied leaving a slew of angry, sexualized messages to other men on the Internet, instead lying that you only said basic insults.
Parkbandit: WHERE DID I EVER DENY CALLING YOU A RAGING HOMO!?
Ashliana: You denied leaving a slew of angry, sexualized messages to other men on the Internet, instead lying that you only said basic insults.
Parkbandit: SEE?! SHOCKER!

Your inability to follow a simple conversation is amazing, but unsurprising. You are, after all, a deluded imbecile.


TLDR: Ashliana is turned on by gay insults and considers them to be sexual advances

TLDR: Methais has the reading comprehension of a toddler, otherwise known as a September 2018 Trump supporter.

[Parkbandit]

Ashliana: You left a slew of angry, sexualized messages to other men anonymously on the Internet.
Parkbandit: Claim 1: "I called you a piece of shit." Claim 2: "I called you a raging homo."
Ashliana: No. Denying what you said, bullshitting that you only left messages like "you piece of shit" doesn't magically change reality. You left a slew of angry, sexualized messages to other men anonymously on the Internet.
Parkbandit: I DIDN'T DENY ANYTHING!
Ashliana: You denied leaving a slew of angry, sexualized messages to other men on the Internet, instead lying that you only said basic insults.
Parkbandit: WHERE DID I EVER DENY CALLING YOU A RAGING HOMO!?
Ashliana: You denied leaving a slew of angry, sexualized messages to other men on the Internet, instead lying that you only said basic insults.
Parkbandit: SEE?! SHOCKER!

Your inability to follow a simple conversation is amazing, but unsurprising. You are, after all, a deluded imbecile.



TLDR: Methais has the reading comprehension of a toddler, otherwise known as a September 2018 Trump supporter.

Jesus. You're really bad at everything.. even pretending to be a normal girl.

I'll say this one more time.. and I'll use tiny little words so your diseased brain can maybe understand them:

I never denied giving you any red rep with any comments.

I denied that I gave them to you as some sort of fag fetish you were hoping they were.

Anything more on this subject will be replied to with the appropriate catfish gif since even using small words is above your ability to understand.

PS - I am still amused that you tried to insult me by inferring that I must be a closet queer though. How does that work out in your brain anyway? :lol:

[Methais]

Ashliana: You left a slew of angry, sexualized messages to other men anonymously on the Internet.
Parkbandit: Claim 1: "I called you a piece of shit." Claim 2: "I called you a raging homo."
Ashliana: No. Denying what you said, bullshitting that you only left messages like "you piece of shit" doesn't magically change reality. You left a slew of angry, sexualized messages to other men anonymously on the Internet.
Parkbandit: I DIDN'T DENY ANYTHING!
Ashliana: You denied leaving a slew of angry, sexualized messages to other men on the Internet, instead lying that you only said basic insults.
Parkbandit: WHERE DID I EVER DENY CALLING YOU A RAGING HOMO!?
Ashliana: You denied leaving a slew of angry, sexualized messages to other men on the Internet, instead lying that you only said basic insults.
Parkbandit: SEE?! SHOCKER!

Your inability to follow a simple conversation is amazing, but unsurprising. You are, after all, a deluded imbecile.



TLDR: Methais has the reading comprehension of a toddler, otherwise known as a September 2018 Trump supporter.

You literally consider gay insults to be sexual advances and I'm the one with reading comprehension issues?

https://media1.tenor.com/images/17cbebab988a5a7102ffe72874f91541/tenor.gif?itemid=3842249

[Methais]

Jesus. You're really bad at everything.. even pretending to be a normal girl.

I'll say this one more time.. and I'll use tiny little words so your diseased brain can maybe understand them:

I never denied giving you any red rep with any comments.

I denied that I gave them to you as some sort of fag fetish you were hoping they were.

Anything more on this subject will be replied to with the appropriate catfish gif since even using small words is above your ability to understand.

PS - I am still amused that you tried to insult me by inferring that I must be a closet queer though. How does that work out in your brain anyway? :lol:

Ashliana calling you a closet queer = implying that being gay is bad which = Ashliana is a homophobe.

Confirmed Ashliana is racist against people he thinks are gay.

What a Nazi.

[Ashliana]

Jesus. You're really bad at everything.. even pretending to be a normal girl.

I'll say this one more time.. and I'll use tiny little words so your diseased brain can maybe understand them:

I never denied giving you any red rep with any comments.

I denied that I gave them to you as some sort of fag fetish you were hoping they were.

Anything more on this subject will be replied to with the appropriate catfish gif since even using small words is above your ability to understand.

PS - I am still amused that you tried to insult me by inferring that I must be a closet queer though. How does that work out in your brain anyway? :lol:

You've repeatedly lied, characterizing your decade-plus string of angry, sexualized messages to other men anonymously on the Internet as merely calling people "pieces of shit" and "raging homos."

Much like Trump, you were exposed in the act. Denying it at this point doesn't change reality. Your deranged behavior is a matter of public record that everybody can see.


You literally consider gay insults to be sexual advances and I'm the one with reading comprehension issues?

By all means, please quote where I ever characterized his insane ravings as "advances." I didn't. His messages don't have to be "advances" to be sexually explicit. You're either deliberately or inadvertently making a strawman argument -- either way, you're totally full of shit, because you have the reading comprehension of a six year old or you're as dishonest as PB is. Take your pick, retard.

[Parkbandit]

You've repeatedly lied, characterizing your decade-plus string of angry, sexualized messages to other men anonymously on the Internet as merely calling people "pieces of shit" and "raging homos."

Much like Trump, you were exposed in the act. Denying it at this point doesn't change reality. Your deranged behavior is a matter of public record that everybody can see.



By all means, please quote where I ever characterized his insane ravings as "advances." I didn't. His messages don't have to be "advances" to be sexually explicit. You're either deliberately or inadvertently making a strawman argument -- either way, you're totally full of shit, because you have the reading comprehension of a six year old or you're as dishonest as PB is. Take your pick, retard.

https://media.giphy.com/media/LuQi2S1JFkQM0/giphy.gif

[Ashliana]

https://media.giphy.com/media/LuQi2S1JFkQM0/giphy.gif

https://www.wheninmanila.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/google-is-your-friend.jpg

[Methais]

You've repeatedly lied, characterizing your decade-plus string of angry, sexualized messages to other men anonymously on the Internet as merely calling people "pieces of shit" and "raging homos."

Much like Trump, you were exposed in the act. Denying it at this point doesn't change reality. Your deranged behavior is a matter of public record that everybody can see.



By all means, please quote where I ever characterized his insane ravings as "advances." I didn't. His messages don't have to be "advances" to be sexually explicit. You're either deliberately or inadvertently making a strawman argument -- either way, you're totally full of shit, because you have the reading comprehension of a six year old or you're as dishonest as PB is. Take your pick, retard.

Oh sorry, you referred to them as sexual fantasies.

You literally consider gay insults to be sexual fantasies and I'm the one with reading comprehension issues?

[Ashliana]

Oh sorry, you referred to them as sexual fantasies.

You literally consider gay insults to be sexual fantasies and I'm the one with reading comprehension issues?

The kicker here is your summarizing of PB's decade-plus string of messages as "gay insults" specifically in an attempt to minimize his behavior. Either intellectual dishonesty or reading comprehension issues are at fault for your conclusion. Either way you end up revealed as ignorant or an asshole. Pick your poison.

The devil's in the details. He spent countless hours sending other men sexually explicit, graphic messages. That's how he chose to spend large amounts of his time. One can only speculate what motivates a person to do so, but clearly his mental illness is involved.

[Parkbandit]

The kicker here is your summarizing of PB's decade-plus string of messages as "gay insults" specifically in an attempt to minimize his behavior. Either intellectual dishonesty or reading comprehension issues are at fault for your conclusion. Either way you end up revealed as ignorant or an asshole. Pick your poison.

The devil's in the details. He spent countless hours sending other men sexually explicit, graphic messages. That's how he chose to spend large amounts of his time. One can only speculate what motivates a person to do so, but clearly his mental illness is involved.

https://media.giphy.com/media/LuQi2S1JFkQM0/giphy.gif

[Ashliana]

https://media.giphy.com/media/LuQi2S1JFkQM0/giphy.gif

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/683/526/4b2.gif

[Parkbandit]

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/683/526/4b2.gif

https://media.giphy.com/media/LuQi2S1JFkQM0/giphy.gif

[Ashliana]

https://media.giphy.com/media/LuQi2S1JFkQM0/giphy.gif

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/kaZncwF8bwIdI9uSIleQxP07aOk=/0x0:1409x785/920x613/filters:focal(622x252:846x476):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/55701647/Screen_Shot_2017_07_13_at_1.09.20_PM.0.png

[Parkbandit]

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/kaZncwF8bwIdI9uSIleQxP07aOk=/0x0:1409x785/920x613/filters:focal(622x252:846x476):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/55701647/Screen_Shot_2017_07_13_at_1.09.20_PM.0.png

https://media.giphy.com/media/LuQi2S1JFkQM0/giphy.gif

[Ashliana]

https://media.giphy.com/media/LuQi2S1JFkQM0/giphy.gif

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/kaZncwF8bwIdI9uSIleQxP07aOk=/0x0:1409x785/920x613/filters:focal(622x252:846x476):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/55701647/Screen_Shot_2017_07_13_at_1.09.20_PM.0.png