“Trump …. attacking Democrats as communists”

The ability to kill a baby is your idea of freedom? Abortion up to 40 weeks. Right?

 

The ability for one to have control over their own body is my idea of freedom. What’s yours?

 

You support abortion up to 40 weeks?

 

Sorry I am not playing this game with you as you will just shout new questions while being unable to respond to anything asked of you — I will happily answer any questions you have after you answer mine since I asked first.

What is your “barometer of freedom”?

 

My barometer of freedom is framed in our Constitution.

 

The original WW

 

The one that was framed with slavery in mind?

I will have to disagree with you there but you probably have the same stance you have with women — it isn’t directly impacting you so f ‘em.

To answer your prior question — no, I do not think a child that is viable should be able to be aborted except for major deformity. If a woman decides they do not want the child after that point it should be removed and cared for to the best of our medical ability. We are rapidly approaching the ability to have artificial wombs and I think we should fund these projects so that we don’t have to steal a mothers bodily autonomy in order to preserve the life of a fetus.

 

Ahhh! A personal attack. Knew that was coming...lol

 

That is what you have said thus far, inference of your words does not equal a personal attack but you are entitled to your own feelings.

I am not the one referring to the framing of a document that allowed slavery and denied women the right to vote as by foundation for what is freedom. I am also not the one saying that someone’s body belongs to the state.

 

Ultimately there is really not much difference between them. They are both totalitarian ideologies that support government control over every aspect of a human being's life to keep them in power.

I remember a point my European civilization professor made in undergraduate school. When two ideologies have only minor differences between their goals and philosophies, they often hate each other with especial vehemence. That’s why the Nazis and Communists ended up and each other’s throats even more than the Capitalists versus the Communists.

 

Communism is global socialism and fascism is national socialism. That's the only difference.

 

LMAOROG


“You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase.” — President Bush, February 8, 2006

“You have to pay for these tax cuts twice under these pay-go rules if you apply them, because these tax cuts pay for themselves.” — Senator Judd Gregg, then Chair of the Senate Budget Committee, March 9, 2006

Reality: A study by the President’s own Treasury Department confirmed the common-sense view shared by economists across the political spectrum: cutting taxes decreases revenues.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/tax-cuts-myths-and-realities

Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

AS ECONOMISTS MEASURE IT TO ACCOUNT FOR INFLATION AND POPULATION GROWTH


Ronnie, Dubya and Cheeto's tax cuts for the rich cost the US treasury

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/source-revenue-share-gdp

THAT'S WHY THE CBO, JCT, MOODY'S ETC SCORE THE COST OF THE TAX CUTS.

In that Chicago survey of economists, 71 percent either disagreed or strongly disagreed that tax cuts would lead to higher revenue in the next five years. Meanwhile, zero percent agreed that cutting taxes would raise revenue in the next five years.

"[A tax cut] won't pay for itself. You're not going to cut taxes by a dollar and get a dollar back in revenue from the growth," said Doug Holtz-Eakin, former director of the CBO.
https://www.npr.org/sections/itsall...05475/fact-check-do-tax-cuts-grow-the-economy

 

Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not “Credible.”

Reagan Economist Feldstein: “It Is Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much.”

Former Bush Chief Economist To CEA Samwick: “You Know That The Tax Cuts Have Not Fueled Record Revenues.”

You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one. [Andrew Samwick, 1/3/07]

Former Bush Economist: "[N]o Dispute Among Economists" That Bush Tax Cuts Reduced Revenue.
said Alan D. Viard, a former Bush White House economist now at the nonpartisan American Enterprise Institute.

CBO: Extending The Bush Tax Cuts Would Increase Deficits By $2.6 Trillion Over 10 Years. In January 2010, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that extending the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 would increase deficits by $2.6 trillion between 2011-2020. [Congressional Budget Office, January 2010]

 

Why are you avoiding such a simple question? Which year did tax cuts result in a loss of revenue for the treasury?

 

Every year the past 50+

I linked to GDP revenues, they fell after Ronnie's 1981 tax cut, Dubya's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts as well as Cheeto's 2017

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/source-revenue-share-gdp

 

The fun fact is that the right calls the left fascist at the same time they're crying "commies!". Make up your effing minds, ffs.

 

What group?

Trump has never admitted to being wrong in any way. It's not in his nature.

 

Greenspan ... aka "Uncle Al the Mad Printer." He moved the Fed in mysterious ways . . .

 

Luxembourg was executed by the German government in 1919, well before Hitler's rise to power.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Ros...-samsung-rvo1&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

 

Folks that voluntarily took on the responsibility of a college loan will have that loan paid back by Biden using my tax dollars. That's like paying off my house or my car using your tax dollars. That has nothing to do ith an effort to save jobs threatened by a crisis/emergency.

 

You wouldn't know a Communist if he reared up and bit you on the arse....

 

I meant like any specific group and demonizes them, calls them enemy of the people, etc.
Intentiomally pitting one group against another for personal gain.
And it's not surprising he doesn't admit mistakes in person, not many do. But he won't admit it to himself, which is terribly counter productive.

 

You're here...lol

 

Hitler didn't outlaw labor unions.

He replaced them with the German Labour Front. A national labor union.

 

Attacking the unions was their solution to destroy Marxism in Germany, - which they considered their arch enemy. Union leaders were shipped off to the concentration camps. German Labor Front was created to confiscate the assets of the former unions, and then collective bargaining was criminalized. German Labor Front was never meant to represent the interest of the workers, - and it didn't.