Wow! That tells the story. Those thugs!

@Bill_Coley said:

@reformed said:

The poorest of the poor don't pay taxes Bill. But other people who are poor by some standards did, in fact, get a tax cut. And people in certain higher tax brackets actually had taxes go up, not down.

So when you posted that "Um, the poor got a tax cut as well...." what you actually meant to post was "Um, those who by some standards are poor got a tax cut as well...." Okay. I just missed your intended nuance.

@reformed said:

Um, the deficit doesn't even come close to Obama's deficits during his whole tenure, you realize this right?

Another "Um" statement. More nuance must be near.

• During Obama's first years in office, the US and global economies were in one of the deepest recessions since the Great Depression of the 1930's. You realize that, right?

Yep, caused by Clinton era policies.

• The federal deficit declined nearly every year of the Obama administration, and has increased in both years of the Trump administration. You realize that, right?

Yep realize that, but you still need to look at the size of each.

• The federal deficit is expected to rise in each of the next several years, due significantly to the Trump tax cuts. You realize that, right?

Yes, if Congress doesn't balance the budget, as they are supposed to, yes that will happen. Unfortunately the budget will never be balanced until both sides agree that is good and proper. I fault both parties for this.

Do you agree they should be required to balance the budget? That the country should live within its means? That doesn't mean raise taxes. It means cut spending in areas that are not crucial to provide domestic tranquility and the common defense and promote general welfare. If we got back to those principles, man, we would have excess of excess in the coffers. Government, big government, IS the problem.

• During Obama's first years in office, the US and global economies were in one of the deepest recessions since the Great Depression of the 1930's. You realize that, right?

@reformed said:
Yep, caused by Clinton era policies.

Um, who was president from 2001-2009, the eight years immediately prior to Obama's taking office? What role in the Great Recession of 2008 did THAT president's policies play?

• The federal deficit declined nearly every year of the Obama administration, and has increased in both years of the Trump administration. You realize that, right?

Yep realize that, but you still need to look at the size of each.

Size and trajectory both matter. Under Obama, they started out large and fell consistently over time. Under Trump they started out where Obama left them and are expected to rise consistently over time. You pick your preferred trajectory; I'll pick mine.

• The federal deficit is expected to rise in each of the next several years, due significantly to the Trump tax cuts. You realize that, right?

Yes, if Congress doesn't balance the budget, as they are supposed to, yes that will happen. Unfortunately the budget will never be balanced until both sides agree that is good and proper. I fault both parties for this.

If Congress hadn't passed the Trump tax cuts (which almost NO Republican is running on in these midterms!!) the deficit would be less today, and balancing the budget would be much easier than it's going to be because of the tax cuts. I blame the Republicans for that.

Do you agree they should be required to balance the budget? That the country should live within its means? That doesn't mean raise taxes. It means cut spending in areas that are not crucial to provide domestic tranquility and the common defense and promote general welfare. If we got back to those principles, man, we would have excess of excess in the coffers. Government, big government, IS the problem.

No. I disagree with your economic/fiscal philosophy, but don't have the time to unpack mine.

@reformed said:

Right, but what was the CAUSE of the great recession of 2008? Do some research Bill.

From what I read, two principal causes of the recession were first, the repeal of the Glass Steagal Act in 1999, which deregulated banks' use of deposits, and then the next year, the passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which deregulated credit default swaps and other derivatives. Both bills were signed by President Clinton, but they were written and led through the legislative process by Republican Senator Phil Gramm of Texas. And the Glass-Steagall repeal passed on House and Senate votes of 362-57 and 90-8, respectively. With such bipartisan support, isn't it hard to call that repeal a strictly Clinton policy?

And Bush43 was in office seven-plus years before the recession hit. What was HIS policy toward banking deregulation? From the NY Times in September 2008:

In retrospect, "it would have helped for the Bush administration to empower the folks at Treasury and the Federal Reserve and the comptroller of the currency and the FDIC to look at these issues more closely," said Vince Reinhardt, a former Federal Reserve economist now at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning research organization here. Reinhardt said it would also have helped "for Congress to have held hearings."

Instead, voices inside the administration who favored tougher policing of Wall Street found themselves with few supporters. William Donaldson, a former Wall Street executive with respected Republican credentials who became chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission under Bush, quit in 2005 after facing resistance from the White House and Republican members of the panel, who criticized his support for stiffer regulations on mutual funds and hedge funds.

Today, even those sympathetic to Bush say he cannot disentangle himself from a home-lending industry run amok or a banking industry that mortgaged its future on toxic loans.

"The crisis definitely happened on their watch," said Kenneth Rogoff, a professor of economics at Harvard University who advises the Republican presidential candidate John McCain. "This is eight years into the Bush administration. There was a lot of time to deal with it."

If laws and policies implemented during the Clinton administration were bad, the Bush 43 administration had seven-plus years to correct them. It did not. Which president's policy was it to leave those laws and policies in effect?

Do you balance your home budget Bill?

Financing the federal government is not like financing our home budgets. BUT, if you insist that it is, what condemnation do you have for the growth in the deficit (and therefore, national debt) that has happened during the Trump administration? For nearly two years, the GOP has held the House, the Senate, and the White House, yet deficits are rising rapidly. Whom do you blame?

You didn't address the budget deficit trajectory issue: Do you prefer a deficit trajectory where deficits start large but fall continuously throughout a president's administration, or a trajectory where deficits start where the previous administration left them, then rise continuously through a president's administration?

@reformed said:

Yes, I am upset about the deficits, I'm upset about the debt and I do blame Replublicans for not doing more to address it. But it is hypocritical for liberals to jump all over Trump and the Republicans when their party was just as bad if not worse.

Federal deficits are a bi-partisan "policy" in our country. But if we're to compare the level of hypocrisy, I think it's clearly conservatives, whose battle cry for decades has been to rail against deficits, who have the greater burden. Liberals, historically, have not voiced the same level of consternation and outrage over deficits.

The reasons we complained about the Trump tax cuts - and perhaps the reasons no Republican in the midterms is running on them!! - is that we knew the economy didn't need them, they weren't the "middle class tax cuts" Trump and the GOP said they were, and that for those reasons, they were not a valid justification to raise the deficit. Polls show that a convincing plurality of the American people believe the tax cuts were not a good idea.

You didn't respond to the issue I raised about responsibility for the recession of 2008: If laws and policies implemented during the Clinton administration were bad, the Bush 43 administration had seven-plus years to correct them. It did not. Which president's policy was it to leave those laws and policies in effect?

And you STILL have not responded to my question about deficit trajectories, so I'll ask it a third time: Do you prefer a deficit trajectory where deficits start large but fall continuously throughout a president's administration, or a trajectory where deficits start where the previous administration left them, then rise continuously through a president's administration?

Hi Folks! (posted the wrong place)

You concerned about any other country in which you are not a citizen? Or just America?

@C_M_ said:

@GaoLu said:
You concerned about any other country in which you are not a citizen? Or just America?

I don't recall saying what country I am a citizen.

I don't recall either that you said in what country you are a citizen. However, you have clearly stated that you are not American. Yet you mock and sneer and deride America and her leaders in the most ungodly way. You are obsessed with her politics. Maybe you just specifically hate America.

Maybe you really are from UK as you seem to have indicated on another forum (if I recall correctly). I doubt that, but don't know. Or maybe you have another reason. Your fascination with politics is almost exactly like Bill's, but Bill claims to be (and almost certainly is) a pastor from Moline, MN. If he isn't, he is an amazing impersonator. I have long wished to visit his church but haven't been able to yet.

What's behind your seemingly nebulous questions? No one can be concerned about America, but Americans? Can an American dislike America's ways and practices? You're entitled to your questions, but in the bigger world of common sense, your questions borders on the margin of nonsense. Reason? Because there are Independent Researchers, Observers, International Researchers, Travelers and Think-tanks, Lovers and Haters of America. Which am I? It is no secret or of any interest to many.

I really don't care in what country you live or in which you are a citizen. I am American traveling much of the time in various countries and occasionally even visit America--for what it is worth, but I have no reason to play games or lie about that.

My concern is that you have a special interest in American politics and (contradictory to your assertions) you entirely conflate your so-called Christianity with the worst of impure politics in most of your posts. Either that or you are busy tearing down both Christians and American leaders.

Say something nice. And then say something nice again. C_M_ I am going to win you over yet. I may not make a coffee drinker out of you or a top-surloin eater, but we will find some broccoli, spinach or a smoothie or something over which we can one day fellowship. I could use a LOT more help in these white harvest fields. I would love to work side by side with you one day.

Fairness, decency, morality, and the cause of humanity are limited to geographical locations?

Nope.

Do I have to declare a citizenship to take interest in a nation and the treatment of its people?

Nope.

Are you of the old "KGB", "FBI", "CIA", etc.?

Nope.

I must give up inquiry or interest in America?

Nope.

What shall I do GaoLu? CM

Seek the Lord your God with all your heart and mind and soul and love your neighbor as yourself.

Thanks for clarifying. I apologize for any confusion my error caused.

High on my list is to come for a visit one of these days. Bill, do you eat steak or drink coffee?