Conservative Tax Cuts - you gotta be kidding me

[Boss]

No, we claimed it would create massive deficits, which it did. It doubled the deficit and tripled the debt...

Nope... Tax cuts didn't increase the deficit. Tax revenues went UP. The deficit was increased due to spending.

 

[Boss]

So that undermines your argument that the wealthy will increase consumption enough to pay for the cuts to their tax rate.

I never made that claim.

I simply stated historical fact. Every time we've dramatically lowered the top marginal income tax rates, it produced greater tax revenue. You have the link to the receipts and outlays because you posted it earlier. You now want to claim Clinton raised taxes and he did but then he lowered them when the Gingrich Republican Revolution happened... did you forget about that? He also lowered Cap Gains which helped produce more revenue.

So let's get something straight here.. "The Wealthy" are NOT who we tax! The US tax code is not based on your overall wealth but rather your earned taxable income for the year. So why do you keep on talking about "taxing the wealthy" as if that's what we do? Do you mean taxes on people who happen to earn a higher income in a given year? What makes you think these are "wealthy" people? Do you understand that every non-incorporated small business in America, files it's taxes as an individual tax payer under the same income tax code as everyone else? Does it not stand to reason that at least some of these "top marginal" taxpayers are actually small businessmen and women who are filing as individuals? Do you assume these are "wealthy" people?

 

[The Derp]

It was called the American Dream Downpayment Assistance Act..

So there is nothing in that bill that mandates a bank has to provide subprime loans to anyone. What that bill did was provide free downpayments to 40,000 low-income buyers. And again, there's nothing wrong with giving free downpayments to 40,000 low-income buyers, if they get a subprime loan and if the subprime loan they get isn't one of those whose standards were dramatically weakened beginning in late 2004.

There exists no evidence that the loans those who got downpayments from the ADDAA were the subprime loans with "dramatically weakened underwriting standards". The ADDAA was passed in 2003. The standards for subprime loans were dramatically weakened beginning in late 2004, according to Bush's Working Group. So you have a gap that you haven't accounted for. BTW - between 2002-2003, there was no dramatic increase in the issuing of subprime loans generally. The spike in subprime lending began in earnest in late 2004, just like Bush's Working Group says.

So there's no connection there. The ADDAA didn't cause a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for subprime loans beginning in 2004...that was done at the direction of the regulators who work for the Executive Branch. And who was in charge of the Executive Branch in 2004? Conservatives.

Oh, you know what else is also funny about the ADDAA? Conservatives totally supported it. Here are the 9 co-sponsors of the bill in the Senate...all co-sponsors were Republicans:

Sen. Sessions, Jeff [R-AL]* 04/08/2003
Sen. Crapo, Mike [R-ID] 04/09/2003
Sen. Brownback, Sam [R-KS] 04/28/2003
Sen. Burns, Conrad R. [R-MT] 05/13/2003
Sen. Hagel, Chuck [R-NE] 05/14/2003
Sen. Santorum, Rick [R-PA] 06/05/2003
Sen. Campbell, Ben Nighthorse [R-CO] 06/25/2003
Sen. Enzi, Michael B. [R-WY] 10/14/2003
Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]

So Sessions is a Conservative, Enzi is a Conservative, Brownback is definitely a Conservative, Santorum is a Conservative. So who are all these Conservatives who opposed it?

Oh and another item of bad news for you: the bill passed the Senate with unanimous consent.

So no Conservatives opposed it, despite you pretending they did.

So why are you bullshitting me?

 

[The Derp]

It was not supported by fiscal Conservatives. They were hooted down by people like you who claimed they didn't care about poor people owning homes. After passage of this legislation, lending institutions were pressured by HUD to make the loans available regardless of credit backgrounds, etc. So, yes, it was a mandate.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

Fucking wrong.

You don't even know the bill you're trying to slander. That's because you haven't done the work to understand this topic. All the ADDAA did was provide free downpayments and closing cost assistance to 40,000 low-income borrowers. It didn't do any of what you're claiming and in order for you to prove it did, here's the fuckin' bill itself, please pull out the text from the bill that supports your shit argument..

I'll save you the time, though...you won't be able to do that. Because the ADDAA doesn't do what you think it does.

I don't know anything about "Bush's Working Group" or what his administration tried to say after the fact about this

And that would explain why you are making bullshit nonsense arguments...because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

The Bush Working Group on Financial Markets was the working group Bush formed to understand why the crisis happened. And that working group determined the crisis was caused by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards beginning in late 2004. If it was a CYA thing for Bush, why did they say it was Bush's fault?

So once again, we are trapped in the realm of "words don't mean what they mean" with you. There's also your voluntary ignorance and your unbridled arrogance. You don't really get this topic...you mix up bills that you never read (Like how you mixed up 2003's ADDAA with 1979's CRA, and were wrong about both anyway)...and you say things that just aren't fucking true. You don't provide any support for your shit arguments, relying on us taking you at your fucking word. Why the fuck should I?

it's common for administrations to do CYA after their policies fail miserably, so it wouldn't surprise me if they don't agree with me. Nor does it surprise me that you're repeating left-wing rhetoric you've heard spewed by radicals who want to blame everything on Conservatives.

So Bush covered his ass by blaming himself for his regulators not enforcing lending standards when he was President.

You're a fucking moron. Stop.

 

[The Derp]

Nope... Tax cuts didn't increase the deficit. Tax revenues went UP.

No they fuckin' didn't! Bush cut taxes in 2001, revenue from 2001-3 was below revenue for 2000.

When you reduce tax revenue, you create deficits.

The deficit was increased due to spending.

Nope. Due entirely, 100% to tax cuts. And what's even more awesome is that below is the KS state budget, showing that tax cuts create deficits. SB 30 is the repeal of the 2013 Brownback Tax Cuts. What happens to the balance once the tax cuts are repealed?

That comes directly from the Kansas State Legislature. It's right there in Orange and Black...repealing the tax cuts (SB 30) turns deficits into surpluses...thus proving tax cuts create deficits.

So you can argue philosophy and perception, but you can't argue math.

 

[The Derp]

I never made that claim.

WHOA! OK, so if you're saying that cutting taxes for the wealthy doesn't result in a corresponding increase in economic activity by those who receive the tax cut, then what is the purpose of cutting taxes?

 

[bendog]

No, we claimed it would create massive deficits, which it did. It doubled the deficit and tripled the debt...

Nope... Tax cuts didn't increase the deficit. Tax revenues went UP. The deficit was increased due to spending.

You might want to look at the early 2000s

 

[The Derp]

I simply stated historical fact. Every time we've dramatically lowered the top marginal income tax rates, it produced greater tax revenue.

No, it didn't! You haven't been able to prove this. Even the revenue numbers don't bear that out. Any increase in revenue was complimented by an increase in outlays. So what you're doing is ignoring one column of the chart here. The column of spending. I bet you that the increases in revenues you think you saw as a result of cutting taxes were actually the result of a corresponding increase in spending. For instance, from 1964 - 1968, the top tax rate was cut from 90% to 70% (a 22% reduction). However, revenues only grew 36% over the period, yet spending grew 51%. When spending happens, does that translate into revenues? Why, yes it does. So how can you credit tax cuts for an increase in revenue when spending is how revenues are generated and from where wages are paid? See, you just don't understand anything, which is why your arguments are so easily destroyed. What's interesting is that the 36% revenue growth is nearly the exact middle between the amount you reduced taxes (22%) and the amount you increased spending (51%)...so an argument can be made that the increase in spending made up for the drop in the tax rate.

Math.

You have the link to the receipts and outlays because you posted it earlier. You now want to claim Clinton raised taxes and he did but then he lowered them when the Gingrich Republican Revolution happened... did you forget about that? He also lowered Cap Gains which helped produce more revenue.

Clinton did not lower income taxes. The only taxes that were lowered during Clinton were the Capital Gains Taxes, and that happened in 1997 and it directly caused the dotcom bubble. So the tax cut that happened during Clinton caused the dotcom bubble that led to the 2001 recession. So thanks for proving my point again that Conservative tax cuts only produce recessions, deficits, and debt.

BTW - Conservatives tried to pass a tax cut in 1999 that Clinton vetoed specifically because it would have erased the nascent surpluses. That tax cut would get passed in 2001 and is what we refer to as The Bush Tax Cuts. It's why the surplus from 2000 was cut in half in 2001, and erased altogether and replaced with deficits beginning in 2002.

So let's get something straight here.. "The Wealthy" are NOT who we tax! The US tax code is not based on your overall wealth but rather your earned taxable income for the year. So why do you keep on talking about "taxing the wealthy" as if that's what we do? Do you mean taxes on people who happen to earn a higher income in a given year? What makes you think these are "wealthy" people? Do you understand that every non-incorporated small business in America, files it's taxes as an individual tax payer under the same income tax code as everyone else? Does it not stand to reason that at least some of these "top marginal" taxpayers are actually small businessmen and women who are filing as individuals? Do you assume these are "wealthy" people?

Do you know what the word "wealthy" means?

 

[Boss]

So there is nothing in that bill that mandates a bank has to provide subprime loans to anyone. What that bill did was provide free downpayments to 40,000 low-income buyers. And again, there's nothing wrong with giving free downpayments to 40,000 low-income buyers, if they get a subprime loan and if the subprime loan they get isn't one of those whose standards were dramatically weakened beginning in late 2004.

There exists no evidence that the loans those who got downpayments from the ADDAA were the subprime loans with "dramatically weakened underwriting standards". The ADDAA was passed in 2003. The standards for subprime loans were dramatically weakened beginning in late 2004, according to Bush's Working Group. So you have a gap that you haven't accounted for. BTW - between 2002-2003, there was no dramatic increase in the issuing of subprime loans generally. The spike in subprime lending began in earnest in late 2004, just like Bush's Working Group says.

I didn't say that bill said anything. I said that was where it all started. After that bill, HUD pressured Freddie Mac into making more subprime loans.
How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

In 2004, as regulators warned that subprime lenders were saddling borrowers with mortgages they could not afford, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development helped fuel more of that risky lending.

Eager to put more low-income and minority families into their own homes, the agency required that two government-chartered mortgage finance firms purchase far more "affordable" loans made to these borrowers. HUD stuck with an outdated policy that allowed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to count billions of dollars they invested in subprime loans as a public good that would foster affordable housing.​

No they fuckin' didn't! Bush cut taxes in 2001, revenue from 2001-3 was below revenue for 2000.

When you reduce tax revenue, you create deficits.

I explained why that happened. I am not going to just keep repeating myself. I've already said that just cutting tax rates doesn't automatically mean more tax revenue. It depends on which taxes are cut and by how much. Bush cut taxes across the board and there was no significant gain in revenue from the lower end tax cuts, there was a precipitous loss. It was somewhat mitigated by the gains at the top but overall, the revenues were down for a few years. Eventually, even his idiotic plan generated more tax revenue.

Tax revenue has not one damn thing in this world to do with budget deficits and spending! NOTHING! Tax revenue is simply the amount of dollars received by applying a tax rate to collective earned income of taxpayers. Where is there anything about the budget or spending in that? You make $X and I'm going to tax you Y% which will yield $Z in revenue. There is nothing in that formula regarding the budget, spending, deficits or debt. One has nothing to do with the other, it is a different column on the chart. You're now talking about OUTLAYS and not RECEIPTS. We simply did not run deficits because we cut tax rates and increased tax revenue! The deficits were because we failed to cut SPENDING!

That comes directly from the Kansas State Legislature.

I'm sorry, the Kansas State Legislature has nothing to do with US Federal Earned Income Tax Rates or the revenues they produce. And again, you are trying to confuse the argument by conflating SPENDING with tax revenue receipts.

WHOA! OK, so if you're saying that cutting taxes for the wealthy doesn't result in a corresponding increase in economic activity by those who receive the tax cut, then what is the purpose of cutting taxes?

Again, I do not have the time or patience to sit here and continually repeat myself over and over and over again because you're apparently tweaking out on meth or something! Go look up the Laffer Curve! Try to get through your drug-addled head that we do not tax WEALTH in America! Cutting the top marginal tax rates will generally result in creating an incentive for top marginal wage earners to earn more wealth (because it's taxed less) and because they earn more wealth, this generates more revenue, even at the lower rate. This typically doesn't apply to lower wage earners because they have little control over their earned incomes. If you are a plumber or electrician, you can't up and decide you're going to make 30% more income next year. However, if you are a small business reporting in the top marginal bracket, you may very well decide to expand your business and take advantage of a lower tax rate.

It's not about "economic activity" per say. Yes, that does help stimulate the economy and that's a good thing. You increase tax revenues by presenting an incentive to earn higher incomes. And this doesn't matter to RICH people because they don't have to earn incomes... they're RICH! Mostly, they are going to invest in securities and municipal bonds and avoid taxes. They will live just fine off their wealth and you can do whatever the hell you want with income tax rates because they don't earn incomes anymore.... they're RICH! You gotta get over this "class warfare" bullshit! You're not hurting rich people! You're not punishing the wealthy! You are stifling small businesses and preventing people from becoming wealthy!