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

[Frank Cannon]

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

This one?

 :thumbsup3:

[Silver Pines]

Who's arguing?

Why pick a fight that is not there?

Go eat some more leftover turkey.

@IsailedawayfromFR

You’re aware, aren’t you, that “argument” doesn’t always mean fighting?

Or maybe not.

[RoosGirl]

This one?

 :thumbsup3:

That is a thumb, not a finger.

[Fantom]

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.

Last first as is my wont.   Using a CBO source is not even remotely independent. Sorry your link is not a valid source.... anymore than is the CBO. That graphic is one weaselly CBO reason why. It is not an actual graph of forcast vrs actual economic performance.... but rather one of the % difference in forcast from actual .... CBO head fake garbage.

Second, my links show that revenue increased after tax cuts. That is a truth you can deny... but it is still the truth.

Third, I not only answered your question, I destroyed your BS.

[Silver Pines]

@CatherineofAragon
"Can be," she says . . . 

Who says the circus is dead? We've still got the circus. It's called the federal government---and the wild
animal acts are running it. Trumpling Brothers and Pablum & Bailout Circus. The greatest sham on earth.

@Easy Ace

Lol. 

Pablum & Bailout indeed.

[musiclady]

I don't think I've ever called him a clown, and I don't call him childish for "fun" or to "feel superior".  I call him childish simply because I think he is.  Can folks actually say that giving nicknames like "Lying Ted", "Pocahontas", and "Rocketman" isn't childish?  It's not a question of "sophistication" to me, it's a question of respecting the Office of the Presidency and  being Presidential.  I just don't think this man respects the office, and I think his tweets often work against him, and I'm obviously not alone in that thinking.  He's the one who said he would be "so presidential that (we) won’t even recognize" him.  I'm still waiting.

 


He clearly does not respect the office of the Presidency, and IMO, he does not really respect himself.

That's the reason he's reduced to childish name-calling, and the bragging (lying?) he did about how he would behave when he was in office.

We haven't seen it because it's not going to happen.

A child is incapable of behaving as an adult.

[Frank Cannon]

That is a thumb, not a finger.

Sorry. How about this one?

[DiogenesLamp]

Democrats will be far more motivated in 2018 and 2020 than we can imagine. It's not going to matter who the Republicans run. Trump's real supporters may get him to 40%.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, this is my prediction of 2020, aka the Democrat tide:

What was your prediction for 2016? 

[DiogenesLamp]

Exactly correct.  People think him a clown but look at his successes so far.

He is appealing to the bulk of Americans while the political elite boils.

For some reason that D@mned fool just keeps winning! 

[Concerned]

Last first as is my wont.   Using a CBO source is not even remotely independent. Sorry your link is not a valid source.... anymore than is the CBO. That graphic is one weaselly CBO reason why. It is not an actual graph of forcast vrs actual economic performance.... but rather one of the % difference in forcast from actual .... CBO head fake garbage.

Second, my links show that revenue increased after tax cuts. That is a truth you can deny... but it is still the truth.

Third, I not only answered your question, I destroyed your BS.

The CBO compared their projections against actuals.  It's not a question of independence.  The projections were the projections, and the actuals are the actuals.  That's a perfect source of comparative data to me.  I'm not surprised you summarily reject it however, since it shows they were accurate in some of their estimates.   

If you "destroyed (my) BS", kindly explain to me how the $1.4T in projected revenue shortfall in this tax reform plan will actually be a revenue surplus.  The tax cuts mean less money is coming in from US citizens and businesses.  So where exactly is the additional revenue coming from?  I understand the theoretical argument that it'll come from "growth" but with this level of business and personal tax cut, where exactly will the "growth" come from?  I'm just trying to understand your argument because it doesn't make common sense to me.  Thanks in advance. 

[RoosGirl]

Sorry. How about this one?

Wrong again.  I'll give you a hint.  It was an avatar of yours at one point that was showing off some weird black fingernail polish.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

This looks like an opportune moment to post this.  :)

[DiogenesLamp]

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).

All you need to discredit a claim is the information that it came from the CBO.   

CBO=dreck.   

[Right_in_Virginia]

This looks like an opportune moment to post this.  :)

I was just going to post this @DiogenesLamp     

[Concerned]

All you need to discredit a claim is the information that it came from the CBO.   

CBO=dreck.

Can you support the argument (with links of course) that the $1.4T in debt forecasted by CBO will actually be an increase in government revenues because no one else has been able to?  Or can you support that the CBO's estimate of $1.4T is "dreck"?  Trump’s tax reform plan is a HUGE decrease in business tax.  I don’t think we’ve ever had such a decrease in business tax.  I’m just trying to figure out why we should think a huge decrease in business tax revenue will actually result in an increase tax revenue long term overall.  I'm just looking at it from a common sense perspective. 

I certainly don’t believe businesses are going to increase salaries.  Similarly, I certainly don’t believe most of this tax savings will be reinvested into capital improvements.  I suspect most of the savings will be invested in stock buy-backs and/or dividends to shareholders.  That’s just a guess, but if someone has a better guess, I'd love to hear it (and the logic of out).  My point is that with HUGE tax cuts, businesses are likely to do a wide range of things with the money.  As a result, I think it’s difficult to project exactly what they’ll do with it, and as a result, I think it's difficult to project how much (if at all) the economy will improve as a result.  Apparently some of you think my skepticism is ill-placed. 

[DiogenesLamp]

I was just going to post this @DiogenesLamp     

GMTA!

[Emjay]

All you need to discredit a claim is the information that it came from the CBO.   

CBO=dreck.

Thank you for using the word 'dreck.'  It's seldom used but an old boss of mine probably used it ten times a day.  It's a fond memory and very descriptive.

[RoosGirl]

This looks like an opportune moment to post this.  :)

That was funny the first 10 times I saw it today.

[Emjay]

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.

Or maybe a beer summit?  Since we're talking presidential behavior.

[Frank Cannon]

That was funny the first 10 times I saw it today.

How was it on the eleventh?

[Fantom]

The CBO compared their projections against actuals.  It's not a question of independence.  The projections were the projections, and the actuals are the actuals.  That's a perfect source of comparative data to me.  I'm not surprised you summarily reject it however, since it shows they were accurate in some of their estimates.   

If you "destroyed (my) BS", kindly explain to me how the $1.4T in projected revenue shortfall in this tax reform plan will actually be a revenue surplus.  The tax cuts mean less money is coming in from US citizens and businesses.  So where exactly is the additional revenue coming from?  I understand the theoretical argument that it'll come from "growth" but with this level of business and personal tax cut, where exactly will the "growth" come from?  I'm just trying to understand your argument because it doesn't make common sense to me.  Thanks in advance.

Last first as is my wont, Course it lacks common sense to you. Facts seem to do that to you.

Independent links I have given prove that tax cuts spur economic growth and bring in greater tax revenue. Something the CBO does not have enough common sense to understand.

The CBO chart you linked does not compare actual growth....just how bad CBO missed projecting against other projections ...most bassed upon.. you guessed it..CBO projections... LOL... see the ironly here.

May as well ask obama how well he did as use CBO data telling us how good they are.  snicker

http://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-year

You see, look at 83 and 84  GDP growth when Reagan tax cuts took effect... compare and contrast to your CBO linked  hogwash.

Next, bring an independent source showing CBO accuracy in anything...anything...here is an easy one for you ..obamacare.

[Right_in_Virginia]

....  this is my prediction of 2020 ...

   

Wow, you really think there'll be that many democrats left in 2020 .... and all lined up on the same beach?? @Night Hides Not   

[Emjay]

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.

They can run on not being democrats.  That should work well.

I'm actually hoping that we can drain a bit of the swamp in 2018 and get some better people in Congress.

So what can the dems run on?  Creating Obamacare?  Welcoming illegals.  Tax increases?

They don't even WANT to do any of this but a lot of Republicans are trying, including Trump.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Or maybe a beer summit?  Since we're talking presidential behavior.

Good one @Emjay   

[RoosGirl]

How was it on the eleventh?

Considering I can't stand Ray Liota to begin with, not so much.