If your political party decides it's okay not to abide by election
results, it may have trouble choosing its own leadership.
Looking forward to Speaker Jeffries.
If your political party decides it's okay not to abide by election
results, it may have trouble choosing its own leadership.
Looking forward to Speaker Jeffries.Stephen can't cope with a party that isn't forced to walk in lockstep.
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 7:16:10 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
If your political party decides it's okay not to abide by election
results, it may have trouble choosing its own leadership.
Looking forward to Speaker Jeffries.
Stephen can't cope with a party that isn't forced to walk in
lockstep.
Who are the representatives supposed to represent...the voters or the party?
And what if voters reject both parties and go with a 3rd party or independent? They get locked out of committee assignments,
have zero input in legislative agenda's etc. How representative is that?
I live under one party state rule and I notice you aren't migrating here to bask in the glory of democrat
hegemony.
On 10/14/23 10:00 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 7:16:10 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
If your political party decides it's okay not to abide by election
results, it may have trouble choosing its own leadership.
Looking forward to Speaker Jeffries.
Stephen can't cope with a party that isn't forced to walk inhttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/caucus
lockstep.
"a closed meeting of a group of persons belonging to the same political party or faction usually to select candidates or to decide on policy
also : a group of people united to promote an agreed-upon cause"
There's that word, 'united.'
Who are the representatives supposed to represent...the voters or the party?When you're choosing party leadership, you pick one over the other candidates. You represent your voters with your choice, then your party
by supporting the winner.
And what if voters reject both parties and go with a 3rd party or independent? They get locked out of committee assignments,Where's the third (or even the second) party in a leadership selection?
have zero input in legislative agenda's etc. How representative is that?
Why would your wishes be respected if you don't vote for your own party?
Of course, the Republicans can't expel the offending eight without
losing their majority.
I live under one party state rule and I notice you aren't migrating here to bask in the glory of democratI live in a nation under a federal government which in trouble because
hegemony.
the House majority party won't unite behind its own caucus vote winner.
I live in a nation under a federal government which in trouble becauseOh the horror. The gov't is far more threatened by skyrocketing debt which will really shut it down.
the House majority party won't unite behind its own caucus vote winner.
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 9:35:21 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 10/14/23 10:00 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 7:16:10 AM UTC-7, mINE109https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/caucus
wrote:
If your political party decides it's okay not to abide by
election results, it may have trouble choosing its own
leadership.
Looking forward to Speaker Jeffries.
Stephen can't cope with a party that isn't forced to walk in
lockstep.
"a closed meeting of a group of persons belonging to the same
political party or faction usually to select candidates or to
decide on policy
Who once bitched about arguing by definition? Oh yeah....that was
you.
Then again...dems once bragged about being the "big tent" party.
also : a group of people united to promote an agreed-upon cause"
an...as in one. Only truly common cause that unites dems is
republican hatred.
There's that word, 'united.'
Who are the representatives supposed to represent...the voters orWhen you're choosing party leadership, you pick one over the other
the party?
candidates. You represent your voters with your choice, then your
party by supporting the winner.
And what are you crying about?
And what if voters reject both parties and go with a 3rd party orWhere's the third (or even the second) party in a leadership
independent? They get locked out of committee assignments, have
zero input in legislative agenda's etc. How representative is
that?
selection? Why would your wishes be respected if you don't vote for
your own party?
Wow...there it is. If you don't vote for the party...no
representation for you. So "united".
Of course, the Republicans can't expel the offending eight without
losing their majority.
I live under one party state rule and I notice you aren'tI live in a nation under a federal government which in trouble
migrating here to bask in the glory of democrat hegemony.
because the House majority party won't unite behind its own caucus
vote winner.
Oh the horror. The gov't is far more threatened by skyrocketing
debt which will really shut it down.
But you're too stupid to see that light ahead in the tunnel.
and on the cost of Ca. housing....dem taxes and regulations are
estimated to increase the cost of new construction in Ca. by 30 -
40%
But hey...you might find a mini-adu you can afford. They're
springing up all over. 800 sq feet of luxury. A bed in every
kitchen.
If your political party decides it's okay not to abide by election
results, it may have trouble choosing its own leadership.
Looking forward to Speaker Jeffries.
No, I simply disagree that debt is the immediate problem you think it
is. And you must not think so either or you'd have protested Trump's tax
cut.
On 10/14/23 3:53 PM, mINE109 wrote:
(Replying to Scott )
No, I simply disagree that debt is the immediate problem you think itI stand corrected. According to this: "Long-term projections show that federal debt as a percentage of the U.S. economy is on a path to grow indefinitely, with increased noninterest spending due to demographic changes... outstripping revenues under projections based on current law."
is. And you must not think so either or you'd have protested Trump's tax cut.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/tax-cuts-are-primarily-responsible-for-the-increasing-debt-ratio/
The cause?
"[T]he Bush and Trump tax cuts... are responsible for more than 90
percent of the change in the trajectory of the debt ratio to date (see Figure 3) and will grow to be responsible for more than 100 percent of
the debt ratio increase in the future. They are thus entirely
responsible for the fiscal gap—the magnitude of the reduction in the primary deficit needed to stabilize the debt ratio over the long run."
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:23:04 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 10/14/23 3:53 PM, mINE109 wrote:
(Replying to Scott )
No, I simply disagree that debt is the immediate problem you think itI stand corrected. According to this: "Long-term projections show that
is. And you must not think so either or you'd have protested Trump's tax >>> cut.
federal debt as a percentage of the U.S. economy is on a path to grow
indefinitely, with increased noninterest spending due to demographic
changes... outstripping revenues under projections based on current law."
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/tax-cuts-are-primarily-responsible-for-the-increasing-debt-ratio/
The cause?
"[T]he Bush and Trump tax cuts... are responsible for more than 90
percent of the change in the trajectory of the debt ratio to date (see
Figure 3) and will grow to be responsible for more than 100 percent of
the debt ratio increase in the future. They are thus entirely
responsible for the fiscal gap—the magnitude of the reduction in the
primary deficit needed to stabilize the debt ratio over the long run."
Complete nonsense. Look at the federal revenue charts.
and note this gem straight from the gov.
Since 2015, the Revenue-to-GDP ratio has increased from 18% to 19%.
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/government-revenue/
On 10/18/23 12:46 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:23:04 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 10/14/23 3:53 PM, mINE109 wrote:
(Replying to Scott )
No, I simply disagree that debt is the immediate problem you think it >>> is. And you must not think so either or you'd have protested Trump's tax >>> cut.I stand corrected. According to this: "Long-term projections show that
federal debt as a percentage of the U.S. economy is on a path to grow
indefinitely, with increased noninterest spending due to demographic
changes... outstripping revenues under projections based on current law." >>
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/tax-cuts-are-primarily-responsible-for-the-increasing-debt-ratio/
The cause?
"[T]he Bush and Trump tax cuts... are responsible for more than 90
percent of the change in the trajectory of the debt ratio to date (see
Figure 3) and will grow to be responsible for more than 100 percent of
the debt ratio increase in the future. They are thus entirely
responsible for the fiscal gap—the magnitude of the reduction in the
primary deficit needed to stabilize the debt ratio over the long run."
Complete nonsense. Look at the federal revenue charts.You'll find the American Prospect to be well-sourced. It takes two to
make a ratio so the revenue chart is only useful inasmuch as it compares
to the debt level.
I refer you to Figure 3 at the link.
and note this gem straight from the gov.
Since 2015, the Revenue-to-GDP ratio has increased from 18% to 19%.
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/government-revenue/However, I'm glad to see you're no longer concerned about the debt level.
What happens when Republicans make the Trump cuts permanent? A $2.6
trillion swing the wrong way.
More American Prospect:
The underlying fiscal result of Clinton-era policy—having, at the very least, a primary surplus and a declining debt ratio—was projected to persist indefinitely until the Bush tax cuts were made permanent.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 12:40:15 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 10/18/23 12:46 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:23:04 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:You'll find the American Prospect to be well-sourced. It takes two to
On 10/14/23 3:53 PM, mINE109 wrote:
(Replying to Scott )
No, I simply disagree that debt is the immediate problem you think it >>>>> is. And you must not think so either or you'd have protested Trump's tax >>>>> cut.I stand corrected. According to this: "Long-term projections show that >>>> federal debt as a percentage of the U.S. economy is on a path to grow
indefinitely, with increased noninterest spending due to demographic
changes... outstripping revenues under projections based on current law." >>>>
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/tax-cuts-are-primarily-responsible-for-the-increasing-debt-ratio/
The cause?
"[T]he Bush and Trump tax cuts... are responsible for more than 90
percent of the change in the trajectory of the debt ratio to date (see >>>> Figure 3) and will grow to be responsible for more than 100 percent of >>>> the debt ratio increase in the future. They are thus entirely
responsible for the fiscal gap—the magnitude of the reduction in the >>>> primary deficit needed to stabilize the debt ratio over the long run."
Complete nonsense. Look at the federal revenue charts.
make a ratio so the revenue chart is only useful inasmuch as it compares
to the debt level.
What part of revenue to GDP is confusing you now?
I refer you to Figure 3 at the link.
Which is complete BS. The attribute debt to loss of revenue.
Except revenues did not decline. Spending rose.
and note this gem straight from the gov.
Since 2015, the Revenue-to-GDP ratio has increased from 18% to 19%.
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/government-revenue/ >> However, I'm glad to see you're no longer concerned about the debt level.
More BS.
What happens when Republicans make the Trump cuts permanent? A $2.6
trillion swing the wrong way.
More American Prospect:
The underlying fiscal result of Clinton-era policy—having, at the very
least, a primary surplus and a declining debt ratio—was projected to
persist indefinitely until the Bush tax cuts were made permanent.
You can't ignore spending. At this point dems have proven they will find a way
to outspend any revenue increases from tax increases.
Now if republicans want to raise taxes for the sole purpose of diminishing deficit....
I would consider it. But I'd rather try Vivek's solution first.
On 10/18/23 8:32 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 12:40:15 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 10/18/23 12:46 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:23:04 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote: >>>> On 10/14/23 3:53 PM, mINE109 wrote:You'll find the American Prospect to be well-sourced. It takes two to
Complete nonsense. Look at the federal revenue charts.
(Replying to Scott )
No, I simply disagree that debt is the immediate problem you think it >>>>> is. And you must not think so either or you'd have protested Trump's taxI stand corrected. According to this: "Long-term projections show that >>>> federal debt as a percentage of the U.S. economy is on a path to grow >>>> indefinitely, with increased noninterest spending due to demographic >>>> changes... outstripping revenues under projections based on current law."
cut.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/tax-cuts-are-primarily-responsible-for-the-increasing-debt-ratio/
The cause?
"[T]he Bush and Trump tax cuts... are responsible for more than 90
percent of the change in the trajectory of the debt ratio to date (see >>>> Figure 3) and will grow to be responsible for more than 100 percent of >>>> the debt ratio increase in the future. They are thus entirely
responsible for the fiscal gap—the magnitude of the reduction in the >>>> primary deficit needed to stabilize the debt ratio over the long run." >>>
make a ratio so the revenue chart is only useful inasmuch as it compares >> to the debt level.
What part of revenue to GDP is confusing you now?The relevance to debt to GDP.
I refer you to Figure 3 at the link.
Which is complete BS. The attribute debt to loss of revenue.It's a ratio. GDP got bigger. It's nonsensical to say tax cuts don't
Except revenues did not decline. Spending rose.
cause a reduction in revenue.
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 7:54:20 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 10/18/23 8:32 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 12:40:15 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:The relevance to debt to GDP.
On 10/18/23 12:46 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 10:23:04 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>> On 10/14/23 3:53 PM, mINE109 wrote:You'll find the American Prospect to be well-sourced. It takes two to
Complete nonsense. Look at the federal revenue charts.
(Replying to Scott )
No, I simply disagree that debt is the immediate problem you think it >>>>>>> is. And you must not think so either or you'd have protested Trump's taxI stand corrected. According to this: "Long-term projections show that >>>>>> federal debt as a percentage of the U.S. economy is on a path to grow >>>>>> indefinitely, with increased noninterest spending due to demographic >>>>>> changes... outstripping revenues under projections based on current law."
cut.
https://www.americanprogress .org/article/tax-cuts-are-primarily-responsible-for-the-increasing-debt-ratio/
The cause?
"[T]he Bush and Trump tax cuts... are responsible for more than 90 >>>>>> percent of the change in the trajectory of the debt ratio to date (see >>>>>> Figure 3) and will grow to be responsible for more than 100 percent of >>>>>> the debt ratio increase in the future. They are thus entirely
responsible for the fiscal gap—the magnitude of the reduction in the >>>>>> primary deficit needed to stabilize the debt ratio over the long run." >>>>>
make a ratio so the revenue chart is only useful inasmuch as it compares >>>> to the debt level.
What part of revenue to GDP is confusing you now?
If revenues rose as a percent of GDP and debt also rose as a percent of GDP then you must know that spending had to be major driving factor.
Only argument you might have and will have is that spending on servicing debt rose.
But it's still spending.
It's a ratio. GDP got bigger. It's nonsensical to say tax cuts don'tI refer you to Figure 3 at the link.
Which is complete BS. The attribute debt to loss of revenue.
Except revenues did not decline. Spending rose.
cause a reduction in revenue.
You take away the tax cuts and you can't assume GDP won't be affected.
Revenue records show the tax cuts only reduced the potential increase in revenue
due to GDP growth which would be less if tax cuts weren't enacted. How much is just a guess.
You can't claim to know but you need to know for those charts and that's why they're BS.
Bottom line....revenues didn't decline and with tax cuts in place have still risen and even set records.
Yet spending continues to create deficits and add to the debt.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 493 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 30:10:35 |
| Calls: | 9,739 |
| Calls today: | 29 |
| Files: | 13,741 |
| Messages: | 6,183,042 |
| Posted today: | 2 |