[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

The axiom that "the longer a post by Whell, the more bullshit it contains" once again holds true. Your argument is akin to saying that it is perfectly OK to run down to Walmart and buy a $1000 high-end TV on your credit card with the full approval of your family, but then tell your credit card company at the end of the month that you're unwilling to pay for such an expensive TV, notwithstanding the fact that you specifically approved the purchase, signed the credit card receipt saying you would pay in full and in good faith, while knowing that your actions would trash your credit rating.

If you've fallen to having to lie or misstate the meaning of my posts, it's a new low for you. You know damn well that my last post and the example used was a critique on government fiscal management, and not saying that it was "perfectly OK." What a bunch of crap the paragraph is, and what putz you are for stooping to a new low.

I'll try to make future posts shorter since, as your comment above demonstrates, you have the attention span of a gnat.

Originally Posted by finnbow

If you're actually interested in the history of debt ceiling debates (and why Biden is taking his current approach) as opposed to continuously spouting supply-side inspired nonsense, here's a very informative article:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-obama/672858/

YOU'RE THE ONE who brought "supply-side" into this discussion in post 62, not me.

Originally Posted by finnbow

You are seemingly unaware that deficits/debts occur when tax receipts don't match public expenditures.

Another straw man debate tactic. I've said the exact opposite in this thread, and you know it. You're seemingly unaware of how hollow some of your statements actually are.

You're the one who believes a reduction in tax rates must axiomatically result in budget deficits. It's like the revenue side of the equation is irrelevant to you beyond any discussion of how revenues must match the government's appetite for spending money.

Any discussion with the left about going in the opposite direction - determining how much revenue is realistic and adjusting spending accordingly - is always a non-starter for the left because the discussion of budget always must start with spending priorities. And of course, when there's any discussion of spending reduction, that's a non-starter too because, of course, the left maintains we don't have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem.

Yet, my prior post (which you mostly ignored other than to criticize its length) demonstrates that while Federal revenues increase every year, so does the debt.

Originally Posted by finnbow

Needless to say, the Tax Policy Center disagrees (as does Forbes, the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Tax Foundation):

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act cut taxes substantially from 2018 through 2025. The resulting deficits will add $1 to $2 trillion to the federal debt, according to official estimates. The debt increase will be larger if some of TCJA’s temporary tax cuts are extended.

This is actually funny. I give you actual realized revenue numbers, and you try to refute those actual numbers by giving me opinion articles that were written long before actual revenues were realized. That's like refuting the actual score of the football game with the pre-game analysis. What a joke.

And, by the way, Biden and company left the elements of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in place last year. So, let's hear you bitch about all of the Biden admin's debt-busting habits. I'm expecting crickets...