Trump calls Warren 'Pocahontas' at event honoring Native American veterans

[Concerned]

@Concerned hasn't gotten back to me on how Presidential Clinton was.  Wonder why???

In fact, the only decent democrat President I can think of is Truman.

I think Clinton was a lying pig who disrespected the office and helped destroy the morals of the country.  Does that answer you on how Presidential I think Clinton was?

[Emjay]

Other Presidents have certainly done things that disrespected the office, and I called them on it at the time.  In fact, I'll continue to call Presidents out who I think disrespect the office.  This is true whether they are my party or not.  To do otherwise would be hypocritical IMO.  As I said, Trump's the one who said he would be "so presidential that (we) won’t even recognize" him.  I'm still waiting.  If you think he's met that goal, we simply agree to disagree.  Sure there are "roadblocks" but he ran on being a "great negotiator", a "great dealmaker", and that he "alone" could fix Washington.  I'm still waiting evidence of those too.

If you equate having sex in the oval office with a young subordinate with sending out tweets you don't like, well then, okay.

In fact, to me, he has met that promise to be presidential far better than I expected.

I'll agree that he said some outrageous stuff but I wish people could give up their ingrained Trump hatred long enough to give him credit for what he has done.

[Emjay]

I think Clinton was a lying pig who disrespected the office and helped destroy the morals of the country.  Does that answer you on how Presidential I think Clinton was?

Exactly.   But you seem just as outraged about Trump because he says stupid stuff from time to time.

Perspective, baby.

[RoosGirl]

You so completely miss the game.

Trump does not even have to mention a name, yet he stirs 'em up.  The projection by a master.

And if you were entertained so much, with the B___S___?

That's a pretty lame explanation of how Trump can be "in her head" or in mine, when we all know that he was actually talking about her.

[DB]

Exactly.   But you seem just as outraged about Trump because he says stupid stuff from time to time.

Perspective, baby.

The 2018 mid terms will provide "perspective". But the Republicans have been doing a good job of crashing and burning without his help... What can they run on? Repeal of Obama care? Building a wall? Deporting illegals? Tax reform? The bridges to the first three have burned and the last one is on fire.

[Concerned]

If you equate having sex in the oval office with a young subordinate with sending out tweets you don't like, well then, okay.

In fact, to me, he has met that promise to be presidential far better than I expected.

I'll agree that he said some outrageous stuff but I wish people could give up their ingrained Trump hatred long enough to give him credit for what he has done.

It's simply a question of priority to me.  I'm a deficit/debt hawk, a "lock her up" guy, and think we desperately need to establish term limits (I don't think anything short of that will truly "drain the swamp").  If I look at giving Trump "credit for what he has done" on those things, I give him an F.  He said he'd eliminate the $20T in debt within 8 years but his tax reform plan adds to debt by $1.4T (according to the CBO).  He said he'd "lock her up" but she's still running free.  He said he'd propose a Constitutional Amendment amendment within the first 100 days.  This was 100% within his control, yet he didn't do it.  Again, on the things important to me, I give an F.  Add to that childish nicknames, petty squabbles, "outrageous stuff" (as you put it), there's pretty limited "credit" to give him (but I've credited him credit when I think he deserves it).

[Concerned]

Exactly.   But you seem just as outraged about Trump because he says stupid stuff from time to time.

Perspective, baby.

I think Trump has equally (as Clinton) belittled the office, and I certainly don't expect my President to say "stupid stuff from time to time" (or at least a frequently as this President does).  I have higher standards than that.  Unfortunately, most of Trump's "stupid stuff" are self-imposed because he simply can't help himself.  JMO.

[Fantom]

It's simply a question of priority to me.  I'm a deficit/debt hawk, a "lock her up" guy, and think we desperately need to establish term limits (I don't think anything short of that will truly "drain the swamp").  If I look at giving Trump "credit for what he has done" on those things, I give him an F.  He said he'd eliminate the $20T in debt within 8 years but his tax reform plan adds to debt by $1.4T (according to the CBO).  He said he'd "lock her up" but she's still running free.  He said he'd propose a Constitutional Amendment amendment within the first 100 days.  This was 100% within his control, yet he didn't do it.  Again, on the things important to me, I give an F.  Add to that childish nicknames, petty squabbles, "outrageous stuff" (as you put it), there's pretty limited "credit" to give him (but I've credited him credit when I think he deserves it).

The CBO does "static scoring".  That is it does not score the effect of the cuts on the economy. It is not a realistic score.

There will be no fiscal alternative except socialism if you use CBO, then we know what happens.

[Concerned]

The CBO does "static scoring".  That is it does not score the effect of the cuts on the economy. It is not a realistic score.

There will be no fiscal alternative except socialism if you use CBO, then we know what happens.

When in US history did huge tax cuts result in huge growth in the economy (especially growth that could offset something on the order of $1.4T in debt increases)?   Please provide a link to the details.  I believe Trump's "tax reform" will add to the debt even though Trump said he'd eliminate the debt within 8 years.  If there's data/evidence out there to convince me I'm wrong, I'm all ears.

[Bigun]

The CBO does "static scoring".  That is it does not score the effect of the cuts on the economy. It is not a realistic score.

There will be no fiscal alternative except socialism if you use CBO, then we know what happens.

The CBO as currently constituted is entirely unless for ANY practical purpose.

[Bigun]

When in US history did huge tax cuts result in huge growth in the economy (especially growth that could offset something on the order of $1.4T in debt increases)?   I believe this "tax reform" will add to the debt even though Trump said he'd eliminate the debt within 8 years.  If there's data/evidence out there to convince me I'm wrong, I'm all ears.

Every single time it has been done since the inception of the income tax at least!

[Concerned]

Every single time it has been done since the inception of the income tax at least!

Got a link supporting that this tax reform will cover the $1.4T in debt forecasted by the CBO?  (That's what I asked for).

[Bigun]

Got a link supporting that this tax reform will cover the $1.4T in debt forecasted by the CBO?  (That's what I asked for).

Do your own damned research as I have!  And CBO estimates aren't worth the paper they are printed on because the cannot take into account any behavioral affects a proposed change would induce.

[Concerned]

Do your own damned research as I have!  And CBO estimates aren't worth the paper they are printed on because the cannot take into account any behavioral affects a proposed change would induce.

If I make an unsupported assertion, I'll gladly support it if I can.  If I can't support it, I'll gladly state I can't support it (and will probably apologize as a result).  That's simple transparency to me.  Suppose I asserted that never in history has a tax cut covered the decrease in revenue.  Would you accept that assertion without proof?  I sure wouldn’t.  That’s what you’re asking me to do, but I'm not surprised you refuse to support your unsupported assertion.  Have a good night.   

[Fantom]

When in US history did huge tax cuts result in huge growth in the economy (especially growth that could offset something on the order of $1.4T in debt increases)?   Please provide a link to the details.  I believe Trump's "tax reform" will add to the debt even though Trump said he'd eliminate the debt within 8 years.  If there's data/evidence out there to convince me I'm wrong, I'm all ears.

Now I expect you to provide the links , which show the CBO as correct... at any time in it's projections.

http://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/tax-cut-myths-and-realities

http://www.heritage.org/node/18247/print-dis

The tax cuts of the 1920s

Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.

According to then-Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon:......

The Kennedy tax cuts

President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).

According to President John F. Ken

.......

The Reagan tax cuts

Thanks to "bracket creep," the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).

According to then-U

[Concerned]

Now I expect you to provide the links , which show the CBO as correct... at any time in it's projections.

http://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/tax-cut-myths-and-realities

http://www.heritage.org/node/18247/print-dis

The tax cuts of the 1920s

Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.

According to then-Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon:......

The Kennedy tax cuts

President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).

According to President John F. Ken

.......

The Reagan tax cuts

Thanks to "bracket creep," the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).

According to then-U

I genuinely appreciate the attempt, but maybe I missed the math associated with the current tax reform plan situation?  What were the actual numbers associated with the decrease in tax revenues in these situations?  I see the percentages but what I'm comparing is an estimate of $1.4T in lost revenue over 10 years.  Does your data provide us some reason to believe that that level of decrease in revenue will be offset by an associated increase?  And where is that increase likely to come from?  I'm not trying to be a jerk, just I'm trying to understand your point, apples to apples to today's situation. 

[RoosGirl]

I'll agree that he said some outrageous stuff but I wish people could give up their ingrained Trump hatred long enough to give him credit for what he has done.

No you don't, because some of us have, which has been proved to you time and again, and you keep spouting the same shit about wishing people would just give him credit where credit is due.

[Bigun]

Sorry, New York Times, tax cuts sure do lead to economic growth

http://www.aei.org/publication/sorry-new-york-times-tax-cuts-sure-do-lead-to-economic-growth/

[roamer_1]

Wow.....from the pic at the link, it looks like the gathering was in a room with Andrew Jackson's portrait.  Talk about tone deafness.

More than that, he's really missin out. Should have met em down on the res for a smoke and a sweat. Good times, that.

[Fantom]

I genuinely appreciate the attempt, but maybe I missed the math associated with the current tax reform plan situation?  What were the actual numbers associated with the decrease in tax revenues in these situations?  I see the percentages but what I'm comparing is an estimate of $1.4T in lost revenue over 10 years.  Does your data provide us some reason to believe that that level of decrease in revenue will be offset by an associated increase?  And where is that increase likely to come from?  I'm not trying to be a jerk, just I'm trying to understand your point, apples to apples to today's situation.

Seriously dude... or dudette as the case may be. One does not "lose" revenue by increasing it via tax cuts. 

Every time..... without fail, 20's Kenedy, Reagan... even Dubya...... Tax cuts increase revenue. That is why the CBO is garbage.

Now where are your links to the CBO ever being right?

[Frank Cannon]

No you don't, because some of us have, which has been proved to you time and again, and you keep spouting the same shit about wishing people would just give him credit where credit is due.

I wish you would give me credit for giving you credit that you gave credit where credit was due.

[Fantom]

I wish you would give me credit for giving you credit that you gave credit where credit was due.

I just wish one of you would pay your tab.

[Silver Pines]

L
Trump does not even have to mention a name, yet he stirs 'em up.  The projection by a master.

@IsailedawayfromFR

Lol

True love

[Concerned]

Seriously dude... or dudette as the case may be. One does not "lose" revenue by increasing it via tax cuts. 

Every time..... without fail, 20's Kenedy, Reagan... even Dubya...... Tax cuts increase revenue. That is why the CBO is garbage.

Now where are your links to the CBO ever being right?

I suppose you refuse to answer my question.  I'm not surprised.  Of course, if the Government cuts taxes, they "lose" revenue  because they are bringing in less revenue.  Anyway, I'll answer your question.  The CBO compares itself to the actuals.  Not surprisingly their record is all over the place:  some years, some of their estimates are good, some, not so good.  A year by year comparison of a variety of forecasts can be seen below:

http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43846-ForecastingRecord.pdf

I hope that answered you question.

[RoosGirl]

I wish you would give me credit for giving you credit that you gave credit where credit was due.

I have exactly one finger to give you @Frank Cannon.