Bio not provided
@tadcf Unfortunately, the average liberal is ignorant enough to believe this is a valid point.
2 years, 10 months ago on “Farewell sex” to be legal as Arab Spring continues to flower in Egypt
Not that I have any evidence, but what comes to mind is that this law could be another way out for abusive husbands. If a woman resists her husband and he rapes her, any threat of going to the police and making the rejection public knowledge could be taken care of by killing her, with any injuries being explained by 'farewell sex'.
Democrats have been accusing Republicans of being the party of No for a few years now. Someone finally realized they were being inconsistent, as the liberal standard is accuse their opponents of whatever tactic the Left was actually using (preventing legal voting, racism, ruining heath care, illegal military action, intentionally damaging the economy, etc). Reid's actions were a necessary and importatnt step.
2 years, 10 months ago on Reid: “No Keystone for you!”
@jpm100 There's a reason the vast majority of reports on oil company finances focus on the raw profit number with no reference to total sales. The actual profit margin (percentage wise) is near the average when compared to other industries, and most of the improvement in profits over the decade before the recession was in refining. Likely reasons:
A) Oil is fungible
B) A new gas station is relatively easy to open in a few months. Even though it takes a long time to set up a new company to pull from the ground, some companies and countries can ramp production up and down relatively quickly depending on prices because it's easy to let a well sit until prices rise. There was no fast way of adding capacity because of the amount of equipment needed and the regulations meant they are inherently large and no company would want one sitting idle. You don't see many mom-and-pop refineries, but there are people that have oil wells in their yard or own just a single gas station.
With the recession, there is some refining capacity available, so that profit margin has tightened the last few years.
2 years, 10 months ago on Scapegoating oil speculators–Obama counts on public’s economic ignorance to shift blame for high gas prices
"Certainly, many Baby Boomers are choosing to retire.."
According to the Census Bureau, the percentage of people over 65 participating in the labor force went up since the start of the depression, meaning ALL the jobs losses in chart 2 were people of 'normal' working age.
2 years, 10 months ago on Unemployment: The myth and the reality
@scotterb That first graph shows that income grew for ALL in the last thirty years, meaning even the poor are better off now than before. It also shows that success was rewarded. You just showed that the income part of the system worked perfectly.
With income up among all brackets, why is the government in so much debt? Evil tax cuts must have shrunk the tax collections -except that tax income hit its peak after the Bush tax cuts went into effect. If not income, the only thing left to blame is spending.
2 years, 10 months ago on Obama: Doubling down on economic ignorance
"Rev. Jeremiah Wright makes the point that he’s never changed his preaching style and that Obama listened to that preaching for 20 years. Who is lying here?"
If only there was some written record of Wright's leanings from before 2008 - like maybe a church bulletin that supported Hamas
Or one that tried so hard to push a racist narritive that it would claim that CBS (you know, the guys that broadcast forged documents to slander the Republican candidate) was run by right-wing consevatives
2 years, 10 months ago on Saturday Link-O-Rama
@Neo_ Hundreds of MWD have been found in Iraq since 2003, so you may want to choose another example.
2 years, 10 months ago on Former NASA scientists and administrators denounce current NASA and GISS climate change stance
The narrative reply would be that a large number of baby boomers decided it was time to retire (either from just getting older or because Bush's destruction of the economy.) In reality, a higher percentage of the people over 65 are working now than before the recession.
Does anyone know if FRED, or any other govt agency, has done a similar chart showing people of 'normal' working age? The data is here in chart 597, but a graph made by me wouldn't be as influential, even using the same data.
2 years, 11 months ago on Quote of the Day: Unemployment reality check edition
@Neo_ @Neo_ It would still be labeled activism. There are many on the left that blame Republicans for impeding Obama via filibuster even in the first two years when it was impossible for them to so.
2 years, 11 months ago on The liberal shock at the collapse of ObamaCare’s “Constitutional” arguments
@CaptinSarcastic For my last comment, I picked the one study the that the authors picked to base the article on - the one that the authors conducted. Other articles were mentioned as references.
The article also clearly states that the studies that corroborate their data also deal with the effect of extra money coming into a region -
"A number of other authors have recently exploited other sources of sub-national variation in spending to estimate similar relative multipliers."
The studies deal with effect on GDP of the region that gets the money. That is only part of the equation when detrmining if the stimulus had a positive effect on the national economy, as the money had to come from somewhere.
3 years ago on Had Christy Romer gotten her way, the stimulus could have been much worse
@CaptinSarcastic THE conclusion of the article is different from, and is not supported by, THE study done by the researchers.
@CaptinSarcastic The bulk of the article was that the authors' study showed that stimulus does have an output multiplier for the region that gets the money. That was then expanded out of context, with no basis from the study, to claim that the stimulus had an overall positive effect at the national level. I showed why looking only at the GDP of the region that gets the stimulus doesn't correlate to a net gain for the area paying for it. The cities weren't central to the point. If Detroit is too far gone, then pick ANY two cities or states that do have a sound economic foundation and use them for the example. By your theory, they should be able to spend each other out of their slump, but none of them actually have.
Basically, I read for comprehension; you just found a conclusion you supported and breezed over the rest.
@CaptinSarcastic @kyle8 The economists cited in the link don't believe that a "vast majority" agree with their opinion "The professional opinion of economists regarding this question is sharply divided..." with many economists on each side. What the linked article doesn't show (partially because of the absence of study the conclusions are based on) is a single instance where massive government spending had a overall positive effect for the economy that paid for the spending. It only states that outside money has a multiplier effect for the area that gets the windfall.
The author's study, and the corroborating studies they cited, all involved money coming from outside the local area where the 'multiplier' was noticed, without regard for what the negative effect was for the area that made the payments. The US Government isn't getting free money from outside to spend for a stimulus. It is either collecting it from it's citizens, or taking a loan in the form of treasuries. To get the money from citizens, with a multiplier of 1.5, requires the government to get 66% of that additional GDP from taxes, meaning tax increases (unless the effective rate was already at 66%). Treasuries are effectively a loan the government has to pay off with interest. At current rates, a 30-year bond for $1,000 costs the US government a total of $1,564; more than the total claimed GDP boost of the stimulus.
If government spending really helped more than it cost, why haven't any cities or states figured it out yet by sending money to each other? Detroit could spend $10 million on Cleveland, and vice-versa, resulting in both cities having improved economies. In a year or so they could repeat the process with larger sums of money, and just continue until both cities are prosperous.
@scotterb Erb's abanbonment of logical thinking already made it clear he needs a geometry class, but now it seems he hasn't had the necessary prerequisites. Saddam killed about 500,000 people in the time between the liberation of Kuwait and the 2003 invasion (and Erb has been given several souces for that data on numerous occasions). That number is far greater than the estimated 100,000 killed since we invaded in 2003. In fact, the entire population of Iraq isn't hundreds of times higher than the number Saddam killed before the US got involved. This goes beyond unsopprtable to utter fantasy. Since Erb has problems with basic math, I'll throw him a bone -200 x 500,000 = 100,000,000 (that's 100 million) The population of Iraq is roughly 30 million.
Libya, in addition to being being done illegally (like Erb falsely claimed for Iraq), and having an increased number of casualties after we got involved, is resulting in people worse than Qaddafi in charge.
3 years ago on Meanwhile in Libya …
@scotterb In Libya, civilian casualties were five times higher once the US got involved than they were before we started bombing the country. In Iraq, the number of civilian casualties has been five times lower since we invaded than it was the decade prior.
Yet someone that claims to be a pacifist on the basis of valuing life argues in favor of the actions that greatly increased the number of dead and against actions that reduced casualties. How utterly hypocritical.
"Why has the collapse of Communism had so little impact on political discourse in the West?"
Because that would mean thousands of people like Erb, whose lives and world-view are tied to support of socialism, admitting they were wrong. The evils of colletivism were apparent long before communism fell, so it already took a hearty suspension of reality and refusal to accept logical thinking to support socialsim to begin with, and they aren't going to become honest and thoughtful overnight. In addition, there are many who have seen that their own little pet project can be provided by the government with little harm to everyone else, so they think it's okay on a small scale without ever realizing what the combined effects of a thousand pet projects are. Once you fudge with the principles, it's all just a matter of scale.
3 years ago on Why has the collapse of Communism had so little impact on political discourse in the West?
@scotterb If the evidence supported climate change, there would be no need to point to consensus, there would be actual proof. In Germany, the government agreed to severe spending cuts (over the objections of the Obama administration) because it realized that government spending and debt is a problem, even though their debt per worker is about half of what it is for the U.S.
3 years, 1 month ago on A comparison of catastrophic scenarios
@scotterb No, the 90's and 00's proved that low taxes can increase revenue and that government interference can cause a bubble to get dangerously large. After the Bush tax cuts went into effect, the government's tax revenue went up. The increases in government debt came becuase spending increased greatly. The dot com bubble was severe for the companies and workers directly involved, but had limited impact outside of them because it was market driven. The housing bubble was driven by increased government regulation, and has had a much more widespread and damaging effects
The only statement Erb made that might be true is that the Iraq war could have been the worst thing for our national interest in decades; but only if it can be proven that it got Obama elected. The rest is flat lies.
If Erb has any integrity, he won't be complimentary of the foreign policy acumen of the poeple that said the following about Iraq; but I suspect the rave reviews will continue, at least through the first week of November."Iraq is not a perfect place. But we are leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people.""I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government."
3 years, 1 month ago on The defense budget
@PogueMahone I'm sure the Democrats will be openly discussing the fact that Obama spent twenty years in a group that pledged to treat people based on the color of their skin, but they think that's OK.
3 years, 1 month ago on Stunning
@CaptinSarcastic The Democrats SAY only they compromise and they will cut spending, but the facts show exactly the opposite. The Republicans have repeatedly given olive branches to the Democrats (extended unemployment, payroll tax cut deal, debt ceiling), but there have been no corresponding spending cuts. When revenues hit all-time highs in 2007-08 after the Bush tax cuts, the deficit was still going up twice as fast as the years prior because Democrats in Congress controlled spending. Only 11 of the 244 Democrats in the House voted against massive spending increases in 2009. Only 34 voted against permanent massive spending increases in 2010. Not a single Democrat has offered to cut spending to less than what the Government took in during 2008You show a deep devotion to the narrative. Unfortunately, constant media support for liberal lies has allowed many to feel like the Democrats are moderate, but claiming you are mainstream doesn’t make it so.
3 years, 1 month ago on The Newtron bomb and plastic, fantastic Mitt
@CaptinSarcastic @kyle8 The Democrats have a far left base with a moderate faction, while the Republicans have a moderate base and a far-ring faction. Lieberman went from being the VP candidate to losing the primary because he didn't toe the line when the party narrative changed (instead speaking in favor of the way they were still voting).
Liberals think ABC, CBS and NBC News are moderate (even after ordering reporters to favor Democrats, reporting obvious fraud as fact and having an anchor admit he thought it was his job to get Obama elected); but FOX is considered far right.
The pervasiveness of the narrative is even evident in the examples Cap gave. Business friendly initiatives at a time when both parties are stressing job growth is moderate, but talking about them is pushing stressing the base for a Democrat (never mind that his actions have been exactly the opposite). Isolationism and adding even more debt at a time of record deficits are both decidedly left, so they don't gain much traction with moderates. Yet a liberal views them as moderate ideas.
@CaptinSarcastic As evidenced by how quickly Robert Byrd, Al Gore Sr. and his son left the party.
3 years, 1 month ago on 953 dead people voted in South Carolina
@scotterb In what would be irony if it didn't happen with most of his comments - There is no more simplistic or ideological theory than Erb's 'bubbles are bad' argument against capitalism.
3 years, 1 month ago on Davos elite: Capitalism is the problem
@looker I don't know if this is because the liberals false assumption of racism as much as projection. Twice already this century, Democrats threw out hundreds of absentee ballots in close elections purely because they would probably go to the Republicans. They just assume their opponents are doing the same thing.
3 years, 1 month ago on Yeah, there’s no voter fraud …
I know Erb will spew anything that supports his conclusion, but often times the replies deal with his overall narrative rather than whatever disproven assumption he bases a particular comment on. I just like to make sure his false claims get pointed out for any first-time or occasional readers.
3 years, 1 month ago on Iran, the Straits of Hormuz and “Armageddon”
Erb's illiteracy is showing again. The last sentence is just pointing out that Obama's much-hyped 'reset' didn't accomplish anything.
Obama's only foreign policy 'successes' have been when he acted directly opposite to his 'Everything Bush did was wrong or illegal' proposals that Erb supported when he was campaigning. Proposals like immediately closing Gitmo, a hastened pullout from Iraq, claiming the surge was a failure, having full Congressional approval for entering a war, respecting other countries' sovereignty, etc.
Bush's foreign policy didn't change after 2006; Erb is just ignorant of the difference between strategy and tactics. Every week, more news comes from Iraq, Libya and Egypt proving that Bush's views were correct all along.
"the wealthiest are likely to remain that way. It's fair and just to tax them a bit more" The tax rate isn't anywhere near flat. The wealthy are taxed, not just a bit more, but a great deal more. The bottom 20% pay zero federal income taxes. Of course, Erb already knew that, but sometimes facts have to be ignored when you start with a conclusion.
"Of course, the voters decide what the job of government is." Not according to the Constitution (for the Federal government). That there is any truth to that statement in practice is the fault of the same government-control loving leftists that have subverted the constitution, twisted the definition of the American dream, and harmed the country. The voters should effect how the government does it's job, but it's actual purpose is already laid out and specifically limited.
3 years, 1 month ago on Krugman: Redefining “Equal Opportunity”
@scotterb "The reason is not bad choices -- that's been shown pretty definitively." Actually, it hasn't. That's just a typical fictional assumption leftists like to operate with. Being born into an upper section of society does give opportunity (as a direct result of good choices by your parents), but that is no guarantee you will stay there (as shown by the third bullet McQ posted from the Treasury data); and being born poor does not constrain where you can end up (also proven in the post). A child born to the bottom 20% has a much better chance of having their college education paid for by the government than one born at the 40th percentile, and it only takes a few years of service to earn the GI Bill. Children often end up with the values they are raised with; people that don't value the mental effort needed to "move up", as well as ones that aren't driven by money, tend to pass that on to their children. Poor people that do insist their children perform well in school, and take the time to show they value their education as a means of improving their life often have children that go to college and/or end up in a better financial situation.
The basis for the opposition is just typical projection. Twice this century, Democrats have thrown out every military absentee ballot they could get their hands on (while claiming to 'count every vote'), simply because they knew which way those votes tended to go. It's their automatic assumption that the Republicans must be doing the same thing.
If the Democrats actually thought cost was an issue, federally subsidising the cost of the average state ID for 15% of the voters they got in 2008 would be about $100M, or about 1/20,000 of what is added to the federal debt every year.
The idea that ID requirements should be opposed by people that beleive in liberty completely forgets that the founders tied liberty to responsibility.
Meanwhile, the idea that a few bucks and the time to go get an ID is too onerous a requirement for poor minorities is being blown away by an urban black Democrat. Washington, DC's most successful public school requires all students to apply to colleges; so the chairman of the city council wants all students in the city to do the same. This is just as time-consuming and almost always more expensive than getting an ID.
3 years, 1 month ago on Busting the “myth” of "no voter fraud"
@Ragspierre No, it's just that the people around him have limited memories and / or no capacity for reason. Otherwise, they would see a conflict between a comment like "there's anything you can do about it, it's the business of the Egyptians and Libyans, not ours" and his previous support for Obama taking direct action in Libya.
3 years, 2 months ago on Meanwhile, in Egypt
@The Shark I haven't paid attention to China, but I'd give the other four more than a 90% chance. If Obama actually has any political beliefs, then Hillary has a decent chance of becoming VP because she would definitely to move the US more towards socialism and/or subservience to the UN.
3 years, 2 months ago on Your predictions
The list doesn't mention the foreign policy accomplishments Obama referred to. Anything he can claim as an accomplishment (Iraq, bin Laden, Libya, etc..) were things that were actually accomplished by Bush and/or things he claimed Bush did illegally.
3 years, 2 months ago on Hyperbole and hubris, thy name is Obama
As mentioned before the 80% claim was based on figure that requie thousands of people dying twice, yet you repeat it. I don't feel like going through every estimate, so I'll concede that I have only three points that show your first response was propoganda.
Since the sanctions allowed more than enough food to make up for any shortfalls from Iraq's own farming (as you said, people were eating by 2003 without any lifting of sanctions), the intentional starvation still goes on Saddam. 500,000 dead is more than 90,000 civilians, your argument for Libya was that it saved lives.
3 years, 2 months ago on Egypt: How many times did I say this?
Your "explanation" was that the links also included totals from before 1991. Of course those totals were much more than the 500,000 from between the two wars, which was supported by every link.
Admin note: This is the third seperate time in this propoganda test that one of your claims was based solely on a failure in reading comprehension. I realize that quality propoganda involves twisting the facts, but do your stundents really have that much trouble with reading critically?
You were given links. Conclusive proof I was correct when I stated you ignored facts to make your claims here on Q and O. Of course, you stated that you don't take this seriously. But you should realize the spirit an argument is given in has no effect on it's validity. Once one of your claims is proven false here, it's still proven false. If you make the same claims when you are in a 'serious' discussion as you do here, you are still lying.
The links for everything I said have been provided in the past, and with a little prompting you've finally acknowledged that people weren't getting food before 2003. The UN made the estimate of 500,000, Saddam claimed 1.5 Million.Wikipedia has info on that too. Even the lowest estimate is higher than IBC's estimate of civilians killed since 2003.
You're the one that claimed the Saudis was WORSE than Iraq, I merely disputed that; I never said Saudi Arabia was clean, or even not horrible. YOU tried to implicate that Saddam wasn't that bad, and all you've shown is that the Saudis helped Bahrain use some of the SAME tactics as Saddam.
Is there a time limit for this propoganda test? Or a certain number of comments?
Another admin note:Since you backtracked on the 80% figure, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that is was just part of the test. But if you want to use that link in a serious discussion, you'll want to have someone that passed math check the figures attributed to IBC. They state that 66,000 of 109,000 total casualties since 2004 were civilian. They also claim that 80% of 151,000 total casualties were civilians (120,000 people). Simple subtraction shows that for 2003, there were 42,000 total casualties, of which 56,000 would have to be civilian, even if there wasn't a single combatant killed. I know Democrats vote twice on a regular basis, but actually dying twice is a bit more difficult.
As I said, all the facts have been shown to you before, with links, you choose to ignore them.
As for your twists on what I said-2006 would be included in everything after the OR in the phrase "the initial invasion or those attacking US forces or the Iraqi government", nice reading comprehension there.
The TOTAL figures for Saddam include the Iran-Iraq war, and even the NY Times accepted a figure of one million in 2003. You were given at least three different sources for the death figure of 500,000+ in the years after the 1991 surrender, but I guess deliberate starvation doesn't register as murder when it doesn't fit your narrative. Once again, either deliberate propoganda or failed reading comprehension.
What have the Saudi's done that is WORSE than "the use of rape as a political tool ... enforced and involuntary disappearances", electric shock, and the use of bulk executions a solution for prison overcrowding?
@scotterb This must be the AP test. First of all, the Iraq case study referred to the country prior to March 2003, the reference to Kuwait was a big hint.Secondly of the roughly 100,000 non-coalition dead in Iraq, the vast majority were either Iraqi soldiers killed during the initial invasion or those attacking US forces or the Iraqi government. Third, what may be worth 100,000 (mostly not innocent) Iraqi and 5,000 coalition lives? Well, Saddam killed about five times that many people in the decade prior to 2003.Fourth, When did Erb predict that the surge would be so successful that the Democrats would attempt to copy it in Afghanistan? Never.
These are all proven facts of which Erb is well aware, so if you didn't recognize the porpoganda in Erb's initial reply, you have failed and no credits will be awarded.
Bonus Propoganda - the study that claimed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties estimated that the total number of violent deaths caused by Iraqis in the year prior to the invasion was ZERO. That's right, according to that study, in a country of 30 million people ruled by a ruthless dictator, not a single person was executed or murdered. In a rare instance where the EU (possibly unwittingly) decided to disagree with Erb, in 2002 it said Saddam committed "systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights" including "summary and arbitrary executions."
There has been a concerted and successful effort to suppress votes in the last dozen years. The Democrats threw out thousands of votes in close elections because people belonged a minority group that had no recourse to appeal before the results were submitted- military absentee voters.
3 years, 2 months ago on NAACP petitions UN over alleged voter suppression in US
"I'm making Islamic politics a part of what I teach, integrated in almost every class to help people understand the reality of what's happening so they don't fall victim to ignorant bigotry and propaganda"
Erb's past case study on Iraq was nothing but ignorant bigotry and propaganda (even claiming that it was reasonable to think that sanction would make Saddam leave Kuwait peacefully, and that the playing of rock music constituted a war crime). You are all now owed college credits.
I'm late to this, but I wanted you to get some response -You're right that most Americans would thell them to shove it, but I think it's partially for religious reasons. Someone that is rabid (especially if they are speaking ill of others) or identifies themselves as a "better" Christian is not likely to be viewed as being a good Christian. There is supposed to be an inherent humility.
On the flip side, the rabid, 'better than you' approach does work in certain other parts of American society - sports, gangs, commisioned sales, liberals.
I have occasionally felt guilty because of a Christian I viewed as behaving better than myself, not because of their admonition, but because of their living example.
When I was attending college, there was a man who would stand in front of the Engineering building and discuss religion a few days a week, and often it seemed he thought only the path he followed would lead to God. The vast majority of the time it was the several dozen in the crowd arguing against Gary. But there were occasions when someone would ardently claim that Gary and his views had no place on a college campus. (Once was a math professor, other times it would be a campus homosexual organization with a bullhorn). At those times, the arguments quickly went in Gary's favor.
3 years, 3 months ago on Egypt: Here’s a surprise
@scotterb In reality, volunteerism worked very well for the vast majority of the immigrants that came to this country. There is a large didvide between having volunteerism as part of the equation and eliminating taxes completely.
3 years, 3 months ago on Krugman has it all figured out: Tax the Rich
@martinmcphillips @scotterb "But no one was being compelled to lend" Martin, you fail to acknowledge that just because the federal government mandated that every company HAD TO make a certain percentage of their loans high-risk AND gave companies a method for lowering their companies exposure, doesn't mean they were forced to continue in the mortgage business. Every company had the option of not giving out any loans at all, and then there would have been no crisis.
@looker @scotterb @CT
You are going to great lengths to avoid admitting you lied when you posted this-"You seem to have missed my use of the word "relative." "
Since even you admit that the middle class did not lose weath, it's obvious that wealth did not shift FROM them, yet that is exactly what you wrote.
"I very openly put that 80% of the data had absolute wealth growth after inflation ... Oh, and I did go back to see if I ever inadvertently made a claim about absolute wealth. I didn't, nor did I imply it." You can't even keep your story straight for one paragraph - did you openly mention absolute wealth or did you make no claim about it?
Even Freddie Mac employees realized they were causing the bubble in 2004.
"Donna Cogswell, a colleague of Mr. Andrukonis [Chief Risk Officer], warned that Fannie and Freddie’s decisions to debase underwriting standards would have widespread ramifications for the mortgage market. In a Sept. 7 email to Freddie Mac CEO Dick Syron and others, she specifically described the ramifications of Freddie Mac’s continuing participation in the market as effectively “mak[ing] a market” in no-doc mortgages "
I see that you repeatedly lied. Your argument was invalid from the beginning, and when that was pointed out you tried to change it. You distincly implied actual weath by the use 'shift OF' instead 'shift in' wealth and the fact that you did not once, in over a dozen comments, use the term relative, or any other modifier on the term wealth. There was no reason to go any farther discussing your argument when you are just going to lie about what your argument was every time it's proven incorrect.
Print out the this comment and follow the directions:1. Refresh the page.2. Go to the top of the reader's comments and click on the word "Oldest". The first 50 comments will be on the page. This includes the comment where you posted statistics and at least ten other comment from you.3. Near the top of the screen, select "Edit"; then select "Find on this page.." A new box will appear on the screen.4. Type the word "relative" in the box, then click on "Next" just to the right of the box.
You will find the only time the word relative is used in the whole page is in the original post. It does not appear in the comment where you posted the statistics or any of the dozen comments that follow.
Extra credit: Check how many times you used the word "wealth" during those first 50 comments.
I never said higher taxes can't lead to higher revenue, just that they aren't needed to get higher revenue. It's nonsensical to argue that higher taxes are the only way to higher revenue when actual revenues rose dramatically after taxes were cut.
As for the ACA, I guess I shouldn't be surprised you don't remember what it is (despite the fact you defended it tooth and nail, even though it was proven to increase the deficit and kill thousands) because it's not in this month's handout.