Skip to main content

And now for today's quiz: When is $10 billion greater than $310 billion? When Republicans control the House of Representatives.

Yes, the American people got another lesson in GOP math this week when House Republicans refused to budge on a $10 billion, five-month extension of unemployment benefits for 1.3 million long-term jobless workers while the GOP-controlled Ways and Means Committee blessed $310 billion in business tax breaks. And while the bipartisan Senate proposal is fully paid for and, according to the nonpartisan CBO, would generate 200,000 more jobs if the Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) was extended to the end of 2014, not one dime of the GOP's "tax extenders" bill is offset by new revenue or spending cuts. The result would be a torrent of red ink, wiping out over the next 10 years about 40 percent of the new revenue gained in last year's "fiscal cliff" deal.

As Forbes and USNews rightly pointed out, the Republicans' hypocrisy is double. After all, many of the same GOP deficit hawks who repeatedly threatened to block a debt ceiling increase are now casually planning to further drain the U.S. Treasury with their package of extensions to expiring business tax cuts. Just as shameful, conservatives are continuing their decades-old double standard that new federal spending must always be offset, while tax cuts never do. And no matter how they go about it, the result is always the same: less tax revenue, more debt, inevitable budget reductions and the gutting of badly needed programs that clearly improve the U.S. economy and Americans' incomes. That Republican death spiral may not generate rapid economic growth, but it does make it easier to drown government in a bathtub.

Fighting to extend the expiring Bush tax cuts in the summer of 2010, Republican leaders gave the game away. That July, Jon Kyl (R-AZ), the second-ranking Senate member, told Chris Wallace of Fox News, "You should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans." Aborted Obama Commerce nominee Judd Gregg (R-NH) soon chimed in, declaring, "I tend to think that tax cuts should not have to be offset." For his part, Oklahoma's Tom Coburn argued his math will work in the future if you ignore the past: "Continuing the [Bush] tax cuts isn't a cost, if you added new taxes, new tax cuts, I would agree that's a cost." Ultimately, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell explained how tax cuts magically turn red ink black:

"There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject."
That may be the view of virtually every Republican on that subject, but that doesn't make it correct.  Continue reading below to see why.

Arthur Laffer's supply side snake oil—that "tax cuts pay for themselves" because the additional economic activity they incentivize will produce revenues higher than they otherwise would have been—is as rotten now as it was when Jude Wanniski first sketched Laffer's Curve on a cocktail napkin for Ronald Reagan.

In January 2001, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast that George W. Bush had inherited a projected $5.6 trillion surplus over the ensuing decade from Bill Clinton. But by the time he ambled out of the Oval Office on January 20, 2009, President Bush had nearly doubled the national debt. And it was tax cuts that were responsible for the biggest share of the new deficits. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) previously explained in 2008 and 2011, the Bush tax cuts accounted for about half the deficits during his tenure and, if made permanent (as most ultimately were by President Obama), would produce more red ink than Iraq, Afghanistan, TARP and the recession combined.

There is no mystery as to why. Thanks in large part to the Bush tax cuts of 2001 ($1.4 trillion) and 2003 ($550 billion), revenue measured in constant 2005 dollars did not return to its 2000 peak of $2.3 trillion until 2006. With the onset of the Great Recession in late 2007, Uncle Sam's take as a share of the U.S. economy plunged to 15 percent, the lowest since 1950. Measured in real 2005 dollars, tax collections did not return again to its previous high until fiscal year 2013.
These results should have surprised no one. After all, in 1981 Ronald Reagan introduced the same black magic, promising to cut taxes, raise defense spending and balance the budget. Instead, during his eight years in the White House, the Gipper tripled the national debt by 1989.

As most analysts predicted, Reagan's massive $749 billion supply-side tax cuts in 1981 quickly produced even more massive annual budget deficits. Combined with his rapid increase in defense spending, Reagan delivered not the balanced budgets he promised, but record-setting deficits. Even his OMB alchemist David Stockman could not obscure the disaster with his famous "rosy scenarios."  As Stockman himself lamented in 2010:

"[The] debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
Despite its uninterrupted record of failure at converting bullshit into gold, the Republicans' tax cut orthodoxy hasn't changed since. In 1996, Bob Dole, like Mitt Romney 16 years later, promised a 20 percent across-the-board income tax cut. While Democrats predicted a massive run-up in the national debt, Dole's supporters instead claimed a "large part of the cost of the plan would be covered by what economists call feedback, or the amount of increased tax revenue created by the tax cut. In this case, the figure is about 27 percent, or $145 billion." Mercifully, Dole was defeated and that release of red ink was avoided.

Unfortunately, George W. Bush was not defeated. And throughout Bush's presidency he boasted, as he did in 2006, "You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase." His allies like Arizona Senator John McCain ("Tax cuts, starting with Kennedy, as we all know, increase revenues") and Kay Bailey Hutchison ("Every major tax cut we've had in history has created more revenue") agreed. Future House Speaker John Boehner was on board, too, defending the Bush tax cuts this way in 2010:

"It's not the marginal tax rates ... that's not what led to the budget deficit. The revenue problem we have today is a result of what happened in the economic collapse some 18 months ago."

"We've seen over the last 30 years that lower marginal tax rates have led to a growing economy, more employment and more people paying taxes."

As David Leonhardt explained in the New York Times in 2009, "The economic growth under George W. Bush did not generate nearly enough tax revenue to pay for his agenda, which included tax cuts, the Iraq war, and Medicare prescription drug coverage."  That same year, Utah Republican Senator Orrin Hatch looked back at the GOP’s budget performance during the Bush years and admitted, “It was standard practice not to pay for things.”

But John Boehner wasn't just wrong about tax cuts not having to be offset in the past. As Ezra Klein explained in the Washington Post in 2012, President Bush's red ink would continue to wash over America in the years to come:

What's also important, but not evident, on this chart is that Obama's major expenses were temporary -- the stimulus is over now -- while Bush's were, effectively, recurring. The Bush tax cuts didn't just lower revenue for 10 years. It's clear now that they lowered it indefinitely, which means this chart is understating their true cost. Similarly, the Medicare drug benefit is costing money on perpetuity, not just for two or three years. And Boehner, Ryan and others voted for these laws and, in some cases, helped to craft and pass them.
(And, it should be pointed out, voted for all of President Bush’s seven debt ceiling increases required to pay the bills for them.)

Which is exactly what came to pass with the passage of the American Taxpayer Relief Act (ATRA), which ended the fiscal cliff stand-off in January 2013. The deal, which raised income and capital gains taxes on households earning over $450,000 a year, will generate an estimated $770 billion over a decade. But the rest of the Bush tax cuts—over $3 trillion worth—were made permanent. And they most certainly were not "offset." If they had been, the long-term U.S. national debt would plummet. As the Washington Post documented in September 2013, the Bush tax cuts are still driving up the national debt.

Despite multiple deficit-reduction deals during the past three years, the national debt is projected to swell to 100 percent of the economy by 2038, due primarily to the enormous cost of caring for an aging society. Making matters worse: tax cuts for the vast majority of Americans made permanent during last year's fiscal cliff showdown. If the tax cuts had been allowed to expire, projections showed the debt dropping to 52 percent of GDP during the next 25 years.
Interestingly, Republicans haven't always argued that tax cuts never need to be offset due to the magic of Arthur Laffer's voodoo economics. As then-Gov. George W. Bush put it in October 2000:
"The surplus is the people's money. It's your money."
That tax cuts would reduce the projected surplus doesn't seem to square with the conservative mantra that they pay for themselves. On January 25, 2001—just five days after Bush took the oath of office—Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan appeared before Congress to make that very point that tax cuts were needed to prevent excessive budget surpluses.
In general, as I have testified previously, if long-term fiscal stability is the criterion, it is far better, in my judgment, that the surpluses be lowered by tax reductions than by spending increases... And should current economic weakness spread beyond what now appears likely, having a tax cut in place may, in fact, do noticeable good.
But as the economy continued to slow down, the surplus talking point disappeared. By late February 2001, President Bush was revising history, declaring, "I said during the course of my campaign and I believe strongly that tax relief is part of the prescription for any economic ill that are nation may have." Stephen Moore, a former Club for Growth honcho who branded federal deficits "fiscal child abuse," agreed with President Bush that tax cuts were both a dessert topping and a floor wax:
"It was about putting more money into people's pockets and returning the surplus to the people. Now, it's about putting some juice in this economy that really needs it right now."
And so "tax cuts pay for themselves" was reborn.

Despite the fact that the national debt ballooned as a result of Bush's faith-based tax cuts, his GOP heirs have steadfastly refused to raise federal taxes. During the 2012 GOP primaries, not a single Republican debate contender would accept a debt reduction deal including $1 of new tax revenue for every $10 in spending cuts. And for four straight years, the very serious House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan proposed a revenue neutral budget that would lower rates and "broaden the base." But over those four years in which he has annually called for a $5 trillion tax cut overwhelming benefitting the wealthy, Ryan has yet to name single tax break he would close to fill the yawning revenue gap his blueprint would produce. (To minimize the inevitable emptying of the United States Treasury resulting from his tax cuts, Ryan like many of his GOP predecessors has called for the CBO to use “dynamic scoring” to show extra revenue gained from the additional economic growth they promise.)  His 2012 running mate Mitt Romney played the same trick.

In contrast, outgoing House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) did not. In his short-lived tax reform proposal released in February, Camp did the hard and politically treacherous work of laying out which of the $1.3 trillion in annual tax expenditures he would close or curb in order to pay for lower rates. His plan, rejected by Democrats and abandoned by Republicans, would limit the mortgage interest deduction, end the deduction for state and local taxes and do away with the notorious "carried interest exemption" among others to offset the cost of lower rates for individuals and businesses. But as CBPP lamented, Rep. Camp has had a change of heart over the R & D tax credit and other of the budget-busting "tax extenders" that expired at the end of 2013:

Making the extenders permanent now would tilt tax reform further against deficit reduction by redefining "revenue neutrality."   The Camp plan paid for the temporary tax provisions it chose to make permanent (such as the research and experimentation credit), a fiscally responsible approach.  But if policymakers make the extenders permanent in advance of tax reform, a future tax reform plan would no longer have to offset the extenders' cost -- $560 billion over ten years -- in order to achieve revenue neutrality.  Policymakers could instead use this money to lower the top tax rate further, at the cost of higher deficits and additional pressure to reduce only spending programs to address the nation's long-term fiscal challenges.
As Lori Montgomery summed it up, “Camp, who is retiring in January, confirmed in an interview that making tax extenders permanent would make it easier for his successor (presumably Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.)) to push rates down further.”

In contrast, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) has called for a temporary two-year extension of the 50-plus expired provisions at a cost of $85 billion in order to provide time to decide which to make permanent. Now Camp has joined with Eric Cantor (R-VA) and the House GOP leadership team to make six of the measures permanent now. As Tax News reported last week:

While Camp professed that the "permanent polices are an important first step to put us on a path towards comprehensive reform that lowers rates and makes the code simpler and fairer," he also elected not to consider their future funding.
Funding, that is, for business tax cuts that will cost Uncle Sam $310 billion. But that's just fine with Congressional Republicans because, as former Senator Kyl put it in July 2010, "You should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans." That left Ezra Klein shaking his head:
Imagine if some Democrat—and a member of the Senate Democratic leadership, no less—said that as a matter of principle, spending should never be offset. He'd be laughed out of the room.
Which is why the unemployment insurance extension bill backed by Senate Democrats—all $10 billion of it—is fully paid for. And last time I checked, $10 billion was a lot less than $310 billion.

EPILOGUE:  In June 2012, not a single economist surveyed by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business agreed with this statement: "A cut in federal income tax rates in the US right now would raise taxable income enough so that the annual total tax revenue would be higher within five years than without the tax cut." In his comments, David Autor of MIT pointed out, "Not aware of any evidence in recent history where tax cuts actually raise revenue. Sorry, Laffer." Former Obama administration economist and current University of Chicago professor Austan Goolsbee put it this way:

"Moon landing was real. Evolution exists. Tax cuts lose revenue. The research has shown this a thousand times. Enough already."
Alas, it was not enough for GOP Gov. Sam Brownback in Kansas and Republican Gov. Chris Christie in New Jersey. They are learning now what Republicans in Oklahoma and Missouri soon will: The Laffer Curve will bring red ink to red states.
EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Bad link (0+ / 0-)

      There's a bad link in your article.

      In the sentence towards the end that says "(To minimize the inevitable emptying of the United States Treasury resulting from his tax cuts, Ryan like many of his GOP predecessors has called for the CBO to use “dynamic scoring” to show extra revenue gained from the additional economic growth they promise)", the link from "dynamic scoring" is:

      www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/11/1298041/%E2%80%9Dwww.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/29/1197911/-Republicans-ask-CBO-to-rig-tax-cut-numbers%E2%80%9D

      when it should just be:

      www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/29/1197911/-Republicans-ask-CBO-to-rig-tax-cut-numbers

      (I had to leave out the http:// stuff to get the link text to post.)

  •  Every state can be Kansas! (18+ / 0-)

    Republicans are truly allergic to empiricism. For them, ideology is all.

    Marx was an optimist.

    by psnyder on Sun May 11, 2014 at 06:23:48 PM PDT

  •  Sketching Laffer's curve is not actually (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JML9999, bananapouch1, J M F

    possible with current data.   The underlying insight is true, but hasn't been relevant at least since 1981.

    •  You mean The Laugher curve? (7+ / 0-)

      Even conservative economists no longer believe in it.  That was always pseudo-science that was used to justify greed over people.

      "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Riane Eisler

      by noofsh on Sun May 11, 2014 at 06:51:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not sure you entirely understand what you (9+ / 0-)

        are talking about.  This is not surprising, given how the Republicans have (with Laffer's connivance)  twisted the concept but originally (and truthfully) it goes like this:

        1.  At a tax rate of zero, revenue is zero.
        2.  At a tax rate of 100% revenue is zero.
        3.  There is a rate of taxation greater than zero but less than 100% which maximizes revenue.

        This is the Laffer curve.  It is:

        a. pretty universally agreed to be correct;
        b.  entirely unclear what the rate in 3 is.

        Without more data, unless the rate you are talking about is really close to zero or 100, the Laffer curve tells you nothing.

        Republicans have tended to assume without any basis that our marginal tax rates are higher than the rate in 3. Laffer has aided and abetted this but there is no legitimate basis for his doing so.

  •  total gop bunk (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hbk, Aquarius40, caul, Janet 707, bartcopfan

    Tax cuts never pay for themselves.  Its just another example of the wealthy trumping the interests of everyone who is not wealthy.  Greed over people.

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Riane Eisler

    by noofsh on Sun May 11, 2014 at 06:49:32 PM PDT

  •  I'm too drunk to comment, but not too drunk (5+ / 0-)

    to know when Republicans lie.  

    Well . . . never mind.  That's kind of a given.

    Once you put convenient, lethal force in the mix, liberty becomes a zero sum game. -- DIgby on open carry.

    by Rikon Snow on Sun May 11, 2014 at 06:52:56 PM PDT

    •  There is no lie too extreme or false (7+ / 0-)

      How many examples do we need? I'm finished with them. I don't even like calling them Republicans; they shit all over whatever civil accomplishments they may be responsible for these days.

      'Conservatives' is the best I can come up with. To quote the great Mike Malloy: They are liars, they are thieves, they are MURDERERS. They lie as easily as they breathe--to anyone, especially themselves.

      And they are proof of several fascinating concepts of brain function: Peer pressure is stronger than fact, and denial is all-consuming to these sociopaths.

      "I feel a lot safer already."--Emil Sitka

      by DaddyO on Sun May 11, 2014 at 07:06:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Republicans are God's People! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JML9999, caul, Janet 707

    EVERYTHING they do turns to gold! When are you evil libruls going to admit that simple fact?

    burp-vomits in his mouth

    "I feel a lot safer already."--Emil Sitka

    by DaddyO on Sun May 11, 2014 at 07:02:33 PM PDT

  •  This alternate reality shit (9+ / 0-)

    has got to end.  We can't afford the prion disease that is modern Republicanism much longer.  

  •  Wait a minute... (7+ / 0-)

    ...I'm still trying to wrap my head around this comment,

    "There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue".....
    Truly Mr. Turtle has shit for brains or is the stupidest person on the planet. Which is saying something considering his party is 'blessed' with Bachman and Palin.

    Only the weak & defeated are called to account for their crimes.

    by rreabold on Sun May 11, 2014 at 07:25:13 PM PDT

  •  How can this information be conveyed to voters? (6+ / 0-)

    I wish your message could  be communicated in a soundbite to people who vote Republican or don't vote at all.

    There are so many diaries on Kos that need to reach a wider swath of voters.

    The problem with progressive/liberal messages is that they often involve analysis of complex issues or fact based research to counter the right wing simple buzz word messages. We all know the words that elicit Pavlovian responses-from their well-fed and well-monitored subjects: "death panels," "Benghazi," "Obamacare," "Freedom," "Liberty". How in the hell can liberal messages compete with "Benghazi!!!" ?

    In my opinion, liberal messages suffer because many people lack the time or energy or motivation or support to process them.

    Republicans make life easy or concrete (like preschool aged children). For their faithful, they reduce the world and everything in it to a simple yes/no, for/against, or good/bad. Of course, almost nothing about life is so clear cut. I remember Sen McCain demanding an answer from Sen Hagel at the confirmation hearing, "Was the surge successful, or NOT!!??" as he was turning blue in the face.

    People believe Republicans who say they support every child having a chance at middle class life. However,  their policies reveal the lies...but who has the time to sort it out---they cut preschool, then they support charter schools, so that a few lucky lottery winners can go to a "good" school instead of the crummy one in the neighborhood, they cut school lunches, so hungry children can't concentrate, then the government collects interest payments on student loans while it loans money to banks for 0% interest (who then make money on the free money), the Republicans cut Pell grants, they cut food stamps, etc, etc...they are liars who can convince enough people to trust them and vote for them.

    How in the world can liberal messages open eyes and minds (I am feeling quite desperate)

    I apologize for the rambling-the post is sort of incoherent

    "The devil can quote Scripture to serve his own purposes."

    by SpringHopeCarolina on Sun May 11, 2014 at 08:07:34 PM PDT

    •  I think you're absolutely right on that... (0+ / 0-)

      After 8 years of W.'s good ol' boy stupidity, it almost seemed like President Obama was actually "talking over people's heads" for the first 12 months of his term; obviously, it helped the whole "elitist liberal" charge to really gain a toehold with a certain demographic.

      The GOP has generally always had a unified front. They've been patient and they've built a mega-media-empire to blast their mantras. The left-wing can't compete at all with that. The GOP also controls the message. They choose their fights and bring the battle every time. Part of it's their huge coffers but part of it is being unabashedly unashamed of employing underhanded tactics and utilizing the worst kind of political operatives they can find. Many of these dirtbags are willing to "take one for the team" in order to further the cause...

      If the Dem's would jump about ten paces back to the left, perhaps the progressive community could be more instrumental in crafting the kind of image and response that's needed. Hell, I don't know... Almost seems pointless sometimes.

    •  In part... (0+ / 0-)

      One of the problems is just countering the vast amount of lies and distortions that the right-wing produces on an almost daily basis. There's simply no way to counter that much BS effectively when you've got the kind of multi-pronged media blitz that the right-wing does. It's impossible.

  •  And yet the GOP still gets re-elected. (0+ / 0-)

    So they get to make the rich richer and still keep their jobs.

    aka... a successful operation.

  •  Mitch McConnell is a baldfaced lying liar (0+ / 0-)

    I would just love to see some Democrats call him on this.

    Shirley Chisholm was right. Our Republic is in deep trouble.

    by Big River Bandido on Mon May 12, 2014 at 06:29:58 AM PDT

  •  You can get people to believe in (0+ / 0-)

    and prepare for ice cream around the bend, or an ogre around the bend, but it's harder to get them to prepare for hard work or sacrifice.

  •  The GOP is on a quest to destroy the United States (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JerryNA

    Government (drown it in a bathtub).

    How anyone could think that would end well is beyond me.

    History has shown that when a nation's central government dissipates and loses power things get ugly and brutal e.g Afghanistan, Somalia, etc.

    The GOP is a party with fraudulent anti-American traitors and sociopathic greedheads as leaders
    and dupes, suckers and loons as followers.

  •  They never "remember" that JFK's cuts (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JerryNA, SilentBrook
    His allies like Arizona Senator John McCain ("Tax cuts, starting with Kennedy, as we all know, increase revenues")
    lowered the top marginal federal income tax rates from 91 percent to 77.

    "Push the button, Max!" Jack Lemmon as Professor Fate, The Great Race

    by bartcopfan on Mon May 12, 2014 at 07:36:03 AM PDT

  •  Astounding (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SilentBrook

    I wrote a letter to the editor on this very subject.  In one move, House Republicans turned down a bill that cost $1,000,000 to help keep foster kids from going into prostitution and in the next breath made a move to make these extenders permanent with no cost offset.  Seems it's only when the Democrats want something that it has to be paid for.

  •  We sit here telling each other the truth every day (0+ / 0-)

    But it doesn't matter because all we have is an echo chamber. Anyone who comes here with an alternative opinion is pushed out. People who post on liberal blogs are not interested in talking to folks who don't agree with them.

  •  America always pays the price for Republicans' off (0+ / 0-)

    America POOR AND MIDDLE-CLASS always pays the price for Republicans' offsetting penalties.

    WHY IS IT THAT REPUBLICANS CANNOT UNDERSTAND THAT THE LESS MONEY YOU TAKE IN, THE MORE YOU ARE FORCED TO SPEND THE GREATER THE NATIONAL DEFICIT??????

    THE AVERAGE WORKING MAN OR WOMAN WILL TELL YOU IF YOU GET NO WAGE OR SALARY INCREASE YOU WILL FALL BEHIND ON YOUR PAYMENTS AND HAVE TO BORROW MORE......

    THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND THE REPUBLICAN POLICIES HAVE ALWAYS INCREASED THE DEFICITS THAT OUR CHILDREN ARE LEFT TO PAY.  REPUBLICANS MORTGAGE THE FUTURE FOR EVERY CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BECAUSE THEY LOVE USING THE NATIONAL CREDIT CARD TO INCREASE THE WEALTH OF THEIR RICH AND POWERFUL SUPPORTERS.  FACE THE FACTS THAT HISTORY HAS RECORDED SO THAT ALL OF YOU REPUBLICAN SUPPORTERS, VOTERS AND BELIEVERS CAN RESEARCH AND READ TO LEARN IT IS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY THAT CREATED EVERY PENNY OF DEBT WE HAVE AS A COUNTRY AND THEY DID NOT SPEND IT ON THE POOR OR THE MIDDLE-CLASS BUT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE RICH AND POWERFUL.

    WELL A MAJORITY OF "WE THE PEOPLE" CLEARLY UNDERSTAND THAT THE LIES YOU ARE TELLING US ARE NOTHING BUT LIES.  "WE THE PEOPLE" KNOW WHO IS TO BLAME FOR THE ECONOMIC POLICIES THAT HAVE CREATED THE ECONOMY WE HAVE TODAY IN THE U.S.A.  "WE THE PEOPLE" ALSO KNOW THAT WE HAVE THE POWER TO CORRECT THE POLICIES WITH OUR VOTE IN 2014 AND 2016 AND A MAJORITY OF US ARE GOING TO REFUSE TO VOTE FOR MORE OF THE SAME OLD REPUBLICAN POLICIES THAT FAIL TO PROTECT AND SERVE US.  WE ARE GOING TO SEND YOU A MESSAGE THAT YOU WILL NO LONGER IGNORE, WE ARE GOING TO VOTE AGAINST EVERY REPUBLICAN WHO IS A CANDIDATE.  EVEN IF THE DEMOCRATS RUN "SPOT" THE DOG AGAINST YOU.

  •  Conservatives (0+ / 0-)

    are destroying our nation and creating a modern serfdom in the process.

  •  I know that the Bush tax cuts hurt the economy. (0+ / 0-)

    I worked for a business that cleans homes.  Housecleaning is tied very strongly to the economy.  If you have the money, you hire someone else to clean your house.  If you are working, you hire someone else to clean your house.  I started working there in 1998, the last couple years of the Clinton years.  Business was good.  We had all we could handle, hired more people.  We had the most we ever had working for us in 99.  Then Bush came in, 9/11 happened, out business dropped like a rock.  It recovered a little, but never achieved the heights it was at during the Clinton years.  I left in Dec. 2007.  At that time, I told the office staff we were headed into a recession.  They agreed.  This was before anyone in the government admitted it.  We could see customers were leaving because they couldn't afford us anymore and we hadn't raised prices.  I left because of health problems of my own and because my husband needed me to care for him.  All during 2008 I saw the economy failing.  Bush's tax cuts most definitely hurt us.  Bush's administration hurt us.  

  •  Republicans (0+ / 0-)

    have got to be voted out. They act more like America's number one enemy than an American.

  •  Do you know what policy REALLY pays for itself? (0+ / 0-)

    Or quite nearly so?  Hint:  It AIN'T tax cuts!

    It's FOOD STAMPS!  Every dollar of food stamps spent in the economy generates around $1.80 of economic activity.  That's what you call "bang for the buck!"  The most recent numbers on how much activity a tax cut generates? About 30 cents per dollar!  Not so much "bang" there, eh?

    The April OMB report says that the federal government actually ran a SURPLUS of around $140 Billion.  The food stamp cuts totaled $80 Billion.  If there was an actual human heart beating among any of the Republican Congressional leadership, we could restore ALL the food stamp cuts and STILL be $60 Billion ahead!

    If CON is the opposite of PRO, the the opposite of PROGRESS would be ...

    OF COURSE the New Right is wrong - but that doesn't make WRONG the new RIGHT!

    by mstaggerlee on Tue May 13, 2014 at 09:38:27 AM PDT

  •  "dynamic scoring" ... (0+ / 0-)

    ... aka, MAGIC!

    OF COURSE the New Right is wrong - but that doesn't make WRONG the new RIGHT!

    by mstaggerlee on Tue May 13, 2014 at 09:41:10 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site