I was watching Family Feud yesterday (don’t worry, it’s not a habit of mine) and the question was, “Name something you’ll have to give up if gas prices get any higher.” The woman’s answer was “My bicycle.”
I thought that answer perfectly represented our political discourse in this country.
This analogy can mean many different things. Care to expound? You also forgot the verb in your first sentence.
Do I need to expound?
There’s not enough demand so let’s cut the government’s demand.
Climate change? Drill, baby, drill.
Too many abortions? Cut funding for contraceptives and family planning.
Can’t afford gas? Get rid of your bicycle.
Well that’s the angle I thought you were going, but I’m just saying it could have been taken in other ways, too.
like?
Continuing on the theme you’ve been going lately with the rift of the left and the president (“Well we need to move policy in a leftward direction. What do we do? Sit it out to teach them a lesson.”) So by many I mean “two.” It’s not a perfect analogy now that I’m more awake and thinking clearly though. So never mind lol.
Yeah, it’s pretty ridiculous to pivot towards the deficit during a horrendous unemployment crisis, just as it’s stupid to open up new oil drilling right after a huge oil spill. Somehow I’m guessing that’s not the direction you were going in, though.
Jeepers!! Who is hosting it these days? And what channel is it on?
To be a moron. To be moronical.
I would have guessed “toast”– was that up on the board?
I am hoping that this didn’t turn out to be one of the “top 5 answers”; if it did, we are really toast.
It got a big [X].
Add to that the piece Rachel did last night on the NRA spokesperson expounding on how the fact that Obama hasn’t gone after the guns is proof he’s going after the guns. We are in big trouble.
As someone said, “Common sense ain’t so common anymore.”
o/t
Harry Reid’s wife has been dx’d with breast cancer and he is by her side as she receives chemo.
What increases revenue? Cut taxes.
The GOP in a nutshell.
Ahh…but it’s true…
A smaller piece of a bigger pie…is a bigger piece…
Because the agreement to take a smaller piece creates the bigger pie…
But Progressives, not understanding, feel like they are in Alice in Wonderland…
Well I’#m sure the Progressives are ignoring that it didn’t work with Reagan, which is why he spent 6 years of his terms raising taxes again.
And it didn;t work with bush, who was the first leader in history to run a deficit during a massive housing boom. Ireland had a similar Housing boom at the same time and it bounced Ireland into the G8.
But yeah cutting taxes to raise revenue always works except when people actually do it.
But it did work with Reagan…
Between 1983 and 1988, federal revenues doubled…alas…federal spending tripled…creating deficits…
And it worked with Bush…from 2001 to 2007, federal revenues increased significantly…revenues only began to decline after the the housing bubble burst…
Please progressives, do your research…the Reagan and Bush tax cuts both produced greater revenue…
IT’S THE SPENDING, STUPID!
Ok, I took 5 seconds after I read this post:
/anotherLibertyFAIL
No mention of Per Capita Spending…
Interesting…
The growth in revenue from 92 to 00 proves my point, as that was a period of economic growth…which really accelerated after Republicans took control of the house and forced Clinton to pivot to the middle…
Economic growth…making the pie bigger…is the key to reducing poverty, reducing unemployment, balancing the budget, and paying for entitlements…
Increasing tax rates is not the key…
Please Progressives…explain how taking more money from the people to grow the economy will create economic growth…
Why do the resent the private sector so much?
What is more important….which factor is more important to increase federal tax revenue…economic growth, or higher tax rates…
You need to get this.
Sure, economic growth = more revenue. Get a clue: there’s little evidence that lower taxes for rich people gives us growth, and there’s certainly and absolutely ZERO evidence that if there was growth that there is enough to make up for the lost revenues of lower taxes.
However, there is plenty of evidence that high taxes coincided with prosperous times, and that when rich people sit on piles of money that they gamble it on speculation at the dog track.
Okay, I get it now. A little wine boosted my comprehension.
Boo…
If I was under the pressure of being on Family Feud, given this question, I would probably have said, “Nothing”…
Was that answer on the board?
What would your answer have been?