The corporate tax cuts were necessary to return the US to parity with Europe. We were continually losing jobs and corporate headquarters to their lower tax rates, and revenue from corporate taxes would have declined even further without the cut. The rest of the tax cuts were revenue neutral, giving the working class a tax cut at the expense of the highly paid management class, especially those in high tax states. None of this was expected to raise tax revenues (although it may have), just to slow the decline.

The spending increase was a mistake, but we have very few Pubs (and no Dems) willing to cut spending. Because of that this has become a non-issue as far as the elections are concerned.

Back to the original topic, Ocasio-Cortez is the poster child for the pathetic lack of economic understanding from the Dems, with emphasis on the party's left wing progression into full blown Venezuelan style socialism. The Pubs have gotten lots of gifts from the Dems recently, with Hillary and AO-C the two huge gifts.

If you think anything that Ocasio-Cortez has said has anything to do with anything that's going on in Venezuela during the last 50 years, you lack understanding of one or the other.
Note I am not defending her, but, Venezuela is very much a special case. 
It would be much more correct to compare what Bernie Sanders or Ocasio-Cortez want to do to what has happened in Canada or in Mexico.

Venezuela is a special case? So every other country that went deeply socialist was more successful? Cuba? Russia? Yugoslavia?

AO-C and Sanders are for more than merely a Canadian style welfare state; they support massive wealth redistribution ala Venezuela. If you believe differently then you've bought into the Leftist spin hook, line, and sinker.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

If you think anything that Ocasio-Cortez has said has anything to do with anything that's going on in Venezuela during the last 50 years, you lack understanding of one or the other.
Note I am not defending her, but, Venezuela is very much a special case. 
It would be much more correct to compare what Bernie Sanders or Ocasio-Cortez want to do to what has happened in Canada or in Mexico.

Venezuela is a special case? So every other country that went deeply socialist was more successful? Cuba? Russia? Yugoslavia?

AO-C and Sanders are for more than merely a Canadian style welfare state; they support massive wealth redistribution ala Venezuela. If you believe differently then you've bought into the Leftist spin hook, line, and sinker.

The Progressive's goal is more the Zimbabwe model.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Venezuela is a special case? So every other country that went deeply socialist was more successful? Cuba? Russia? Yugoslavia?

AO-C and Sanders are for more than merely a Canadian style welfare state; they support massive wealth redistribution ala Venezuela. If you believe differently then you've bought into the Leftist spin hook, line, and sinker.

The Progressive's goal is more the Zimbabwe model.

Nobody wants to turn into Zimbabwe. 
That was a civil war in which the general who ended up winning promised land to his soldiers.  They took the land regardless of if they could so much as afford to buy seeds, let alone equipment.  They ended up starving, some of them.  They didn't pursue that land to get no crops off of it and starve.
Morality aside, expropriation of land doesn't automatically lead to shortages.  As in Zimbabwe, other errors have to be made along with it.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

If you think anything that Ocasio-Cortez has said has anything to do with anything that's going on in Venezuela during the last 50 years, you lack understanding of one or the other.
Note I am not defending her, but, Venezuela is very much a special case. 
It would be much more correct to compare what Bernie Sanders or Ocasio-Cortez want to do to what has happened in Canada or in Mexico.

Venezuela is a special case? So every other country that went deeply socialist was more successful? Cuba? Russia? Yugoslavia?

AO-C and Sanders are for more than merely a Canadian style welfare state; they support massive wealth redistribution ala Venezuela. If you believe differently then you've bought into the Leftist spin hook, line, and sinker.

Norway has been successful, and nationalized its oil production around the same time that Venezuela did.
And Norway has offered more welfare for a longer period of time than Venezuela.  
When the government takes over the oil company, maybe they just sit back and collect reasonable dividends as Norway's did, and continue investing in new production, or, maybe the government decides to take more than a reasonable dividend, leaving no money for drilling new wells, and fires anyone who disagrees, leaving no one who knows how pumping oil actually works and no money to figure it out. That's what Venezuela's did.
Both went fully socialist, meaning government ownership of the means of production, but only one had catastrophe.
Socialism creates opportunity for catastrophe, but does not guarantee it.  It also helps if your nationalization process doesn't cause your biggest trading partner to embargo you, as Cuba's did.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Venezuela is a special case? So every other country that went deeply socialist was more successful? Cuba? Russia? Yugoslavia?

AO-C and Sanders are for more than merely a Canadian style welfare state; they support massive wealth redistribution ala Venezuela. If you believe differently then you've bought into the Leftist spin hook, line, and sinker.

Norway has been successful, and nationalized its oil production around the same time that Venezuela did.
And Norway has offered more welfare for a longer period of time than Venezuela.  
When the government takes over the oil company, maybe they just sit back and collect reasonable dividends as Norway's did, and continue investing in new production, or, maybe the government decides to take more than a reasonable dividend, leaving no money for drilling new wells, and fires anyone who disagrees, leaving no one who knows how pumping oil actually works and no money to figure it out. That's what Venezuela's did.
Both went fully socialist, meaning government ownership of the means of production, but only one had catastrophe.
Socialism creates opportunity for catastrophe, but does not guarantee it.  It also helps if your nationalization process doesn't cause your biggest trading partner to embargo you, as Cuba's did.

Alaska also collects the value of its oil. Does that make it socialist? Selling the minerals you own is not socialist, even if the land is owned by the government.

And Norway, a small, all-white, Northern European monocultural state is not representative of the US, or very many other countries. The tax per household there is around $100K. For an additional $100K per household Americans could get a lot better education and healthcare than what Norway provides. If your best case example is Norway, then you are just proving my point.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Norway has been successful, and nationalized its oil production around the same time that Venezuela did.
And Norway has offered more welfare for a longer period of time than Venezuela.  
When the government takes over the oil company, maybe they just sit back and collect reasonable dividends as Norway's did, and continue investing in new production, or, maybe the government decides to take more than a reasonable dividend, leaving no money for drilling new wells, and fires anyone who disagrees, leaving no one who knows how pumping oil actually works and no money to figure it out. That's what Venezuela's did.
Both went fully socialist, meaning government ownership of the means of production, but only one had catastrophe.
Socialism creates opportunity for catastrophe, but does not guarantee it.  It also helps if your nationalization process doesn't cause your biggest trading partner to embargo you, as Cuba's did.

Alaska also collects the value of its oil. Does that make it socialist? Selling the minerals you own is not socialist, even if the land is owned by the government.

And Norway, a small, all-white, Northern European monocultural state is not representative of the US, or very many other countries. The tax per household there is around $100K. For an additional $100K per household Americans could get a lot better education and healthcare than what Norway provides. If your best case example is Norway, then you are just proving my point.

And i read this morning they average a little less than 1% gdp since 78.

---

Norway has been successful, and nationalized its oil production around the same time that Venezuela did.
And Norway has offered more welfare for a longer period of time than Venezuela.  
When the government takes over the oil company, maybe they just sit back and collect reasonable dividends as Norway's did, and continue investing in new production, or, maybe the government decides to take more than a reasonable dividend, leaving no money for drilling new wells, and fires anyone who disagrees, leaving no one who knows how pumping oil actually works and no money to figure it out. That's what Venezuela's did.
Both went fully socialist, meaning government ownership of the means of production, but only one had catastrophe.
Socialism creates opportunity for catastrophe, but does not guarantee it.  It also helps if your nationalization process doesn't cause your biggest trading partner to embargo you, as Cuba's did.

Alaska also collects the value of its oil. Does that make it socialist? Selling the minerals you own is not socialist, even if the land is owned by the government.

And Norway, a small, all-white, Northern European monocultural state is not representative of the US, or very many other countries. The tax per household there is around $100K. For an additional $100K per household Americans could get a lot better education and healthcare than what Norway provides. If your best case example is Norway, then you are just proving my point.

The text book or dictionary definition of socialism is when government owns "the means of production" to use a phrase that the translators of Marx have given us. Any productive asset could be thought of as the "means of production."
So yes, Alaska's ownership of its oil fields is an example of socialism.
A related, but separate, concept is the welfare state. The welfare state is where the government spends money to help the poor and improve overall quality of life.
Socialism is more about how the government gets money, and welfare state is more about what the government does with the money. Alaska and Jacksonville (JEA) have more socialism and less welfare state, while England and Canada have less socialism and more welfare state.
Bernie and Alexandra talk much more frequently about expanding the welfare state. They almost never talk about having the government take over certain industries or productive activities. When asked how she intended to pay for her new welfare state activities, Alexandra could have said something socialist like "we'll have the government takeover ExxonMobil." Instead she said something Progressive, which was just "we'll tax more"

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Alaska also collects the value of its oil. Does that make it socialist? Selling the minerals you own is not socialist, even if the land is owned by the government.

And Norway, a small, all-white, Northern European monocultural state is not representative of the US, or very many other countries. The tax per household there is around $100K. For an additional $100K per household Americans could get a lot better education and healthcare than what Norway provides. If your best case example is Norway, then you are just proving my point.

And i read this morning they average a little less than 1% gdp since 78.

Norway's population has grown by much less than 1% per year. They accept very few immigrants. So their real GDP per capita has really improved.

I'm not saying that Norway is a model for the US. I'm just saying there is at least one way to make the combination of socialism and welfare state work. I'm sure there are others

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

And i read this morning they average a little less than 1% gdp since 78.

Norway's population has grown by much less than 1% per year. They accept very few immigrants. So their real GDP per capita has really improved.

I'm not saying that Norway is a model for the US.  I'm just saying there is at least one way to make the combination of socialism and welfare state work.  I'm sure there are others

Use dictionary definitions when they support your case, redefine numbers when they don't. I see a pattern in your posting.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

For those keeping score, every Ocasio backed candidate LOST tonight.

Carry on...

---

Norway's population has grown by much less than 1% per year. They accept very few immigrants. So their real GDP per capita has really improved.

I'm not saying that Norway is a model for the US.  I'm just saying there is at least one way to make the combination of socialism and welfare state work.  I'm sure there are others

Use dictionary definitions when they support your case, redefine numbers when they don't. I see a pattern in your posting.

Why does that bother you? I'm just trying to tell you exactly what I mean so that I won't be misunderstood.  I don't want to misunderstand anyone either.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Use dictionary definitions when they support your case, redefine numbers when they don't. I see a pattern in your posting.

Why does that bother you? I'm just trying to tell you exactly what I mean so that I won't be misunderstood.  I don't want to misunderstand anyone either.

When what you say doesn't match reality so you attempt to redefine reality then you have a problem.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Why does that bother you? I'm just trying to tell you exactly what I mean so that I won't be misunderstood.  I don't want to misunderstand anyone either.

When what you say doesn't match reality so you attempt to redefine reality then you have a problem.

Redefining words is not the same thing as "redefining reality".
If you disagree with an opinion I write, it may be based on not defining words the same way.  So I try to head that off.  Once I make sure you understand my definitions, you still might disagree with my opinion.  Anyone has a right to disagree, I'm just trying to make sure your disagreement is based on understanding rather than misunderstanding.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

When what you say doesn't match reality so you attempt to redefine reality then you have a problem.

Redefining words is not the same thing as "redefining reality".
If you disagree with an opinion I write, it may be based on not defining words the same way.  So I try to head that off.  Once I make sure you understand my definitions, you still might disagree with my opinion.  Anyone has a right to disagree, I'm just trying to make sure your disagreement is based on understanding rather than misunderstanding.

See, I don't care about "your" definitions, I care about "the" definitions. If you choose your words wrong that's on you, and I think you intentionally choose to misdefine your words just to stir up controversy. This whole "make sure you understand my definitions" thing smacks of trolling.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Redefining words is not the same thing as "redefining reality".
If you disagree with an opinion I write, it may be based on not defining words the same way.  So I try to head that off.  Once I make sure you understand my definitions, you still might disagree with my opinion.  Anyone has a right to disagree, I'm just trying to make sure your disagreement is based on understanding rather than misunderstanding.

See, I don't care about "your" definitions, I care about "the" definitions. If you choose your words wrong that's on you, and I think you intentionally choose to misdefine your words just to stir up controversy. This whole "make sure you understand my definitions" thing smacks of trolling.

I'm sorry you feel that way.  I don't think I've ever tried to use any word in a way that wasn't one of the top two or three definitions on Merriam-Webster.
I'm not trying to upset anyone.
Your politicians and talk radio hosts want you upset . 
Notice that I don't usually start threads. 
These threads start because someone heard something on a right wing blog or a right-wing talk radio show that was intentionally presented to be as upsetting as possible, then they broadcast their outrage here. 
I'm always the guy trying to say that the truth is more complicated than you're intentionally upsetting pundit has made it out to be and maybe you don't need to be so upset.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

See, I don't care about "your" definitions, I care about "the" definitions. If you choose your words wrong that's on you, and I think you intentionally choose to misdefine your words just to stir up controversy. This whole "make sure you understand my definitions" thing smacks of trolling.

I'm sorry you feel that way.  I don't think I've ever tried to use any word in a way that wasn't one of the top two or three definitions on Merriam-Webster.
I'm not trying to upset anyone.
Your politicians and talk radio hosts want you upset . 
Notice that I don't usually start threads. 
These threads start because someone heard something on a right wing blog or a right-wing talk radio show that was intentionally presented to be as upsetting as possible, then they broadcast their outrage here. 
I'm always the guy trying to say that the truth is more complicated than you're intentionally upsetting pundit has made it out to be and maybe you don't need to be so upset.

So you're ascribing other's actions to me, changing the definition of plain words to attempt to make your case, and then blaming them for your inability to maneuver your way out of the corners you keep finding yourself in. Good to know. Keep digging, you'll find water eventually.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I'm sorry you feel that way.  I don't think I've ever tried to use any word in a way that wasn't one of the top two or three definitions on Merriam-Webster.
I'm not trying to upset anyone.
Your politicians and talk radio hosts want you upset . 
Notice that I don't usually start threads. 
These threads start because someone heard something on a right wing blog or a right-wing talk radio show that was intentionally presented to be as upsetting as possible, then they broadcast their outrage here. 
I'm always the guy trying to say that the truth is more complicated than you're intentionally upsetting pundit has made it out to be and maybe you don't need to be so upset.

So you're ascribing other's actions to me, changing the definition of plain words to attempt to make your case, and then blaming them for your inability to maneuver your way out of the corners you keep finding yourself in. Good to know. Keep digging, you'll find water eventually.

most comments that I make are not directed at you or even at anyone in particular.
As I already said I don't deviate from the top three in Merriam Webster.
it would be a pretty sad and useless discussion if no one was learning anything and no one ever said anything that they later had to back off of.
Republicans used to believe that it was OK to candidly change your mind when presented with new information or possibilities.  I still do.  But now most don't believe that.  So they have two choices.  One is that they can adopt an extremely simplistic worldview, "government bad, letting people do whatever they want good," as you have done.  The other option is to keep their complicated and nuanced point of view, but aggressively deny and counter-accuse if someone catches you changing your mind, as most politicians and pundits do now.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

So you're ascribing other's actions to me, changing the definition of plain words to attempt to make your case, and then blaming them for your inability to maneuver your way out of the corners you keep finding yourself in. Good to know. Keep digging, you'll find water eventually.

most comments that I make are not directed at you or even at anyone in particular.
As I already said I don't deviate from the top three in Merriam Webster.
it would be a pretty sad and useless discussion if no one was learning anything and no one ever said anything that they later had to back off of.
Republicans used to believe that it was OK to candidly change your mind when presented with new information or possibilities.  I still do.  But now most don't believe that.  So they have two choices.  One is that they can adopt an extremely simplistic worldview, "government bad, letting people do whatever they want good," as you have done.  The other option is to keep their complicated and nuanced point of view, but aggressively deny and counter-accuse if someone catches you changing your mind, as most politicians and pundits do now.

Third option, laugh at folks who put on airs to impress on a message board. And you are so stuck in binary thinking that you have to force other people's worldview and philosophies into your narrow understanding so that you can have all these either/or scenarios you keep pushing in all your conclusions. You talk so much to end up in the same place every time ie everyone else needs to accept your conclusions as gospel.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

most comments that I make are not directed at you or even at anyone in particular.
As I already said I don't deviate from the top three in Merriam Webster.
it would be a pretty sad and useless discussion if no one was learning anything and no one ever said anything that they later had to back off of.
Republicans used to believe that it was OK to candidly change your mind when presented with new information or possibilities.  I still do.  But now most don't believe that.  So they have two choices.  One is that they can adopt an extremely simplistic worldview, "government bad, letting people do whatever they want good," as you have done.  The other option is to keep their complicated and nuanced point of view, but aggressively deny and counter-accuse if someone catches you changing your mind, as most politicians and pundits do now.

Third option, laugh at folks who put on airs to impress on a message board. And you are so stuck in binary thinking that you have to force other people's worldview and philosophies into your narrow understanding so that you can have all these either/or scenarios you keep pushing in all your conclusions. You talk so much to end up in the same place every time ie everyone else needs to accept your conclusions as gospel.

LOL.  If you think I'm trying to force conclusions on anyone we have a serious misunderstanding.  As often as not I'm asking questions. 
I just described my point of view as adaptable and nuanced and you described it as binary.  Dunno.  Only one of us knows my thoughts.
I know where you're coming from.  I'm not going to change your mind.  You're an "all government bad let me do whatever I want and that would be better" person.  Non-aggression principle and all that.  Apply what you believe about actions to your words to me and I think we'll do a good job of staying out of each other's way.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Third option, laugh at folks who put on airs to impress on a message board. And you are so stuck in binary thinking that you have to force other people's worldview and philosophies into your narrow understanding so that you can have all these either/or scenarios you keep pushing in all your conclusions. You talk so much to end up in the same place every time ie everyone else needs to accept your conclusions as gospel.

LOL.  If you think I'm trying to force conclusions on anyone we have a serious misunderstanding.  As often as not I'm asking questions. 
I just described my point of view as adaptable and nuanced and you described it as binary.  Dunno.  Only one of us knows my thoughts.
I know where you're coming from.  I'm not going to change your mind.  You're an "all government bad let me do whatever I want and that would be better" person.  Non-aggression principle and all that.  Apply what you believe about actions to your words to me and I think we'll do a good job of staying out of each other's way.

"Only one of us knows my thoughts."

Followed immediately by "I know your thoughts."

You can't get out of your own way, much less mine.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato