Despite a bipartisan effort...

Yup. That's why I posted that very sentiment.

Foxfyre wrote:

‘trillion dollar deficits for years to come’ is apparently not a problem?

The right started complaining about the Bush admin's trillion dollar deficit spending spree roughly at the time when McCain was nominated as the Republican candidate for presidency.

Zero. Credibility.

Sure they disagree. But the idea that 'most economists' who have actually supported the stimulus package as it is currently written is utterly ridiculous. And probably only those of us who have actually read what both sides are saying have a really good grasp on the problem we're dealing with here.

I appreciate that you lefties don't want to put two principles side by side to see what has worked in the past as opposed to what works now, but some of us think that is a really smart thing to do. I strongly recommend it.

Looks like you Europeans would eventually see that leftist ideas don't produce robust economies for long, if at all, and would be encouraging the USA to get with the program and actually do something that historically has been proved to work instead of continuing the same idiotic stuff that got us into this mess in the first place.

The right didn't complain about tax cuts that reduced tax revenues by trillions of dollars while the country was fighting a war. The right didn't, for most of the 8 years of Bush, complain about the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Apparently, "trillion dollar deficits for years to come" weren't a problem to conservatives as long as a Republican Congress and President was responsible. I might be mistaken on that one, and you're welcome to point to all of the conservative leaders who strictly opposed tax cuts during a time of war, and who unequivocally spoke out against the trillion dollar deficit spending for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Foxfyre wrote:

Looks like you Europeans would eventually see that leftist ideas don't produce robust economies for long, if at all, and would be encouraging the USA to get with the program and actually do something that historically has been proved to work instead of continuing the same idiotic stuff that got us into this mess in the first place.

Right. It's the darn socialistic policies of the Republican Congress and adminstration that got you into the mess.

We better elect leaders and parliaments in Europe who are further to the right than Bush and the Republicans if we want to avoid the consequences of your socialistic policies....

That is because most on the right recognize that the tax cuts did not reduce tax revenues by trillions of dollars but rather historically, and proved again this time, carefully structured tax cuts INCREASE revenues to the national treasury.

The right was not and has not accumulated trillions of dollars of deficit spending in Iraq and Afghanistan. Had they done so they would have objected to that.

That is because most on the right recognize that the tax cuts did not reduce tax revenues by trillions of dollars but rather historically, and proved again this time, carefully structured tax cuts INCREASE revenues to the national treasury.

The right was not and has not accumulated trillions of dollars of deficit spending in Iraq and Afghanistan. Had they done so they would have objected to that.

It is absolutely the more socialist policies that create huge entitlements that we cannot afford without confiscating more and more of the people's ability to create wealth and support themselves.

And you keep right on ignoring rebuttal to your erroneous points

I believe I have yet seen you make even an attempt to defend your point of view though OE.

But yes, you, like most or at least many leftists, think valid debate is attacking, belittling, or demeaning your opponent and/or his argument, or building strawmen as a diversion, while providing no credible evidence to back up your low opinion of your opponent and/or his argument.

School kids sometimes get their kicks out of those kinds of exchanges.

But I really prefer a more substantive exchange of ideas.

(Psst tell Cyclop that we have posted reams of evidence that tax cuts have increased revenues in the past. He ignored it.)

I believe I have yet seen you make even an attempt to defend your point of view though OE.

But yes, you, like most or at least many leftists, think valid debate is attacking, belittling, or demeaning your opponent and/or his argument, or building strawmen as a diversion, while providing no credible evidence to back up your low opinion of your opponent and/or his argument.

School kids sometimes get their kicks out of those kinds of exchanges.

But I really refer a more substantive exchange of ideas.

But I really prefer a more substantive exchange of ideas.

Cyclop I get as tired of these did too did not idiotic exchanges with you as much as I do OE or anybody else who makes grand proclaimations and/or accusations and then refuses to back them up with anything.

So how about you showing how tax cuts have reduced revenues and lets go from there? We've had this discussion many times in the past so let's start with you not posting deficits, unemployment rates, GDP etc. etc. etc. Show how tax cuts intended to stimulate the economy have reduced REVENUES.