Does GDP growth mean Federal Tax revenue growth?

[The Derp]

The DERP is a real trip. He talks about respect on the forum, and then you see his ratings are running at about 25%. Clearly he hasn’t made many friends here, even more clearly, few people respect what he post.

Like I give a shit how Russian trolls and a bunch of duped idiots with poor instincts rate my posts.

I know what I'm saying about policy is hitting home because you're resorting to bitching about how mean I am to you.

I didn't realize you all were such delicate snowflakes when it comes to your egos and emotions. All I can say is try not to explode and go on a shooting rampage, which you kind seems to do quite often.

 

[The Derp]

Asked and answered, and the tax breaks for wealthy individuals expire at the same time as every one else..

NO THEY DON'T YOU FUCKING IDIOT.

The tax cut for the top bracket DOES NOT EXPIRE.

The tax cut for corporations DO NOT EXPIRE.

Your tax cut expires, though.

So you're the fucking idiot here. Someone so dumb they were hoodwinked and conned by a failed reality TV host, and a collection of corporate Conservatives who don't give a shit about you, who made their tax cuts permanent and yours temporary.

How does it feel to be used?

 

[The Derp]

I've NEVER seen one supporting link!

Because you don't read posts when they're given to you. You can look at my post history and find TONS of links throughout everything I post. Whereas you rely on the same memes, most of which are unsourced, that you don't defend on the details.

You're just a propagandist, and a shitty one too.

 

[The Derp]

Where is your proof?

What proof do you want? Pick an item and I'll give you proof. There was a budget surplus in 2001 that you squandered. GDP growth for 2001 was positive. You make excuses after excuses for why Conservative policy didn't work, but you don't admit the actual reason; because Conservative policy is bullshit and isn't designed to work.

 

[kaz]

Well, I don't know what the context of those three words were.

Sure you do. You wrote them. Are you too lazy to go back a page or two in this thread? Sure seems like it; lazy and entitled...just like every Conservative ever.

I'm a conservative! That's some pretty strong smack. Do you do this for a living? Seriously, I mean wow.

Leftists are too vacuous to memorize more than one set of talking points, so everyone is a Republican who's not a leftist. Not Republican? Not Leftist? At the same time? That would make your head explode

You say the tax cut was lame yet here you are defending it. Double taxation? Huh? I thought corporations were people, according to you guys

See, you demonstrate the point above. You aren't smart enough to memorize anything but anti-Republican talking points. So you say I'm a Republican, then I get the anti-Republican talking points. Not knowing you're an idiot doesn't make you not an idiot.

I said the Trump tax cuts are better than nothing, but they aren't nearly big enough. Too difficult a concept for you to grasp. It requires at least a two digit IQ, something you just don't have.

And FYI, corporations aren't people, no idea what you're talking about. They are property, the property of their owners. Taxing my property then me again on the same money is taxing the same money twice. Hence the term "double taxation."

You're not smart enough to grasp that, are you?

 

[The Derp]

Strawman. I didn't say that my "definition" changes. My ability to know what the point I was making changes.

Yes you fucking did! OMG. Add short-term memory loss to the list of symptoms of brainwashing that you show. How can you not know what point you were making at any given time? Christ almighty...what a fucking whiner.

So typically Conservative; you can't be held responsible for the points and arguments you make, and you think you're entitled to have everyone explain your own point to you.

So just to be clear, you claim that anyone can pull any sentence out of any discussion you ever made and you can tell them what your point was?

You're acting as if you lack the ability to scroll up through posts. So this more of that bullshit entitlement I've talked about before; that you make a shit point, then expect everyone else to defend you making the shit point you made because you think you're entitled to it. Well guess what? You aren't entitled to shit. Not even your opinion. Why? Because entitlements are earned and you haven't done shit to earn anything. Instead, you made the world's shittiest point, then spent the next few posts walking that back, hoping that you vomiting up "context" will save you. It won't. There isn't a "context" issue here, there is a "you not knowing what the fuck you're talking about" issue. That subject is tax cuts. Your contention was that tax cuts increase revenues. The data shows that they don't. Yet you continue making the argument that they do...so what does that make you? An idiot, a propagandist, and/or a liar.

 

[healthmyths]

Where is your proof?

What proof do you want? Pick an item and I'll give you proof. There was a budget surplus in 2001 that you squandered. GDP growth for 2001 was positive. You make excuses after excuses for why Conservative policy didn't work, but you don't admit the actual reason; because Conservative policy is bullshit and isn't designed to work.

OH sure well HERE is your proof of ONE f...king year of surplus...
But hey I don't know where you were but 2001??? Let's see recession that started under clinton, Dot.com bust...again Clinton, and oh yea 9/11 again look up Gorelick Memo!

 

[kaz]

Strawman. I didn't say that my "definition" changes. My ability to know what the point I was making changes.

So typically Conservative

I'm just laughing at you now. I pointed out you're too dim witted to memorize two sets of talking points, so I simply have to be a Republican so you can use those or you're completely lost, and you keep proving it!

OMG, OMG, OMG, you called me a conservative, I can't handle it, that's just evil. I'm going to cry now.

Happy?

Idiot

 

[The Derp]

Actually, my bullshit ideology created the greatest, richest and most powerful country in the history of the world, the United States. You and the rest of the leaches are finally pulling us down.

No it didn't! Bull-fucking-shit. Your ideology is nothing like the ideology that built the middle class. All the things that built the middle class in this country are things you oppose; federal spending, Medicare, Medicaid, public schools, high taxes on the rich. Nothing you believe has had any positive impact on our economy. NOTHING.

Gocha, Karl. Taxes don't affect economic growth. Wow you're an idiot.

Tax cuts don't affect economic growth, and the revenue growth from Reagan and Bush the Dumber vs. Obama and Clinton prove it. Obama and Clinton both raised taxes, saw faster revenue growth than Reagan and Bush the Dumber, who both cut taxes and produced recessions.

Just curious what triggered your epiphany that you know more about economics than economists do. I'm thinking because leftist lawyers told you and you aren't capable of questioning

I never said that and here is another example of your bullshit whiny entitlement coming through. The economists nearly universally say that cutting taxes for the rich doesn't produce any gains to balance out the cost to the budget the tax cuts cause. Most economists say that the tax rate on the wealthy is too low, and should be in the 50-70% range. You don't know shit about what you're saying, and you defer to these unnamed "economists", most of whom say that your trickle-down bullshit doesn't work, has never worked, and will never work. Just like it didn't work when Bush the Dumber did it. Just like it didn't work when Brownback did it. So if it didn't work during Bush the Dumber, and didn't work during Brownback, why the fuck would it magically start working today?

 

[kaz]

The economists nearly universally say that cutting taxes for the rich doesn't produce any gains to balance out the cost to the budget the tax cuts cause

Yep, I nailed it. You are so full of shit. You know nothing about economics. You blindly believe lawyers as purveyors of all knowledge and wisdom. Lawyers to you are like Jesus to a Christian. You believe, you just do

 

[The Derp]

So a market correction is a global "catastrophe?"

This is more than a "market correction", this is a market shift from bull to bear. By this time next year, we will be in a recession and it will be because of these tax cuts. So now you make excuses and try to diminish your own policy failures because you have faith that it will all work out in the end. And that's the real rub here; your entire economic and fiscal belief system relies on faith that the rich and corporations will act a certain way, even though all evidence from before shows they won't. It's that faith that underlines pretty much everything you believe...that Conservatives have faith people will act a certain way because your shit intuition makes you think it. But here's the thing; your shit instincts should be the first clue that your shit policy is flawed.

The markets are still higher than when he took office.

So fucking what!? I have news for you, pal, for all your crowing about the market under Trump, it grew more during Obama's first year. And he did that despite the country being in a recession for half of that first year. Trump's merely riding Obama's coattails, and not even doing a great job of that...job creation hit a 7 year low last year. Gee, I wonder why...

This is why wasting any time proving anything to you is a waste of time.You're intellectually dishonest and a total sheep. You wouldn't believe water is wet if that served your God, the Democrat party.Where do you get this idea you can issue homework assignments anyway?[

"Intellectual dishonesty" = "Democrat Party"

It's "Democratic Party"

You can't even insult people correctly. That's how much of a fucking loser you are.

 

[The Derp]

Well while I'm disappointed in GWB in recent year and his support of Obama/et.al and angst about Trump here is why GWB will go down in history as one of the great presidents after a few years recollection! People like you NEVER probably lived through these events.

The only thing that can be attributed to the growth you're trying to highlight during Bush the Dumber was the subprime mortgage bubble. The same subprime mortgage bubble you blame on the Democrats, Clinton, and Barney Frank. So here's the problem with everything you're arguing; if you're trying to give credit to Bush for the growth in the economy that happened as a result of the subprime mortgage bubble, then he must also get the blame for the popping of that bubble. What you're trying to do is give Bush all the credit while heaping all the blame on everyone else.

So which is it?

Was the mortgage bubble the fault of the Democrats, in which case Bush deserves no credit for the growth from that bubble and was just riding the coattails of others; or was the mortgage bubble the fault of Bush and the Conservatives?

Because you're highlighting the bubble years (2004-7) as some sort of proof of Bush's success...so, that "success" came as a result of the mortgage bubble, which means that the BLAME for the collapse also lies with Bush. After all, you're claiming the success of the economy during the Bubble years were due to Bush...well, he gets the blame for the fallout of that bubble too.

 

[kaz]

This is more than a "market correction", this is a market shift from bull to bear

Speaking of your lack of economic knowledge. Economists define a correction as a 10% drop and a bear as a 20% drop.

The DOW dropped 10.4% from it's peak and has partially rebounded. The definition of a correction

The markets are still higher than when he took office.

So fucking what!?

Because you were trying to support the point that Trump's election would be an economic disaster. This your failing to grasp context is burning you yet again

This is why wasting any time proving anything to you is a waste of time.You're intellectually dishonest and a total sheep. You wouldn't believe water is wet if that served your God, the Democrat party.Where do you get this idea you can issue homework assignments anyway?[

"Intellectual dishonesty" = "Democrat Party"

It's "Democratic Party"

You can't even insult people correctly. That's how much of a fucking loser you are.

LOL, now your insults are attempted spelling checks. The Democrat party sucks, home boy. You are liars. Fake News, double standards from that which you held Obama to. Fascism trying to shut down free speech you don't like with violence. Voting for a feminist who attacks sexual assault victims and is married to a sexual predator. Calling anyone who disagrees with you on any subject a racist. Defending the dead and illegal aliens voting. You're a party on the brink of totalitarianism.

Note I argue with Republicans on the board all the time. Your arguments with Democrats? Zero

 

[The Derp]

I'm a conservative! That's some pretty strong smack. Do you do this for a living? Seriously, I mean wow.

Yes, you're a Conservative. A Conservative is someone who ignores facts and math, who continues arguing shit points anyway, and who refuses to take responsibility for anything. Oh, and who is also incredibly fucking lazy and entitled. You expecting others to accept your constant redefinition or parameters is pretty much the most entitled, Conservative thing one can do.

Leftists are too vacuous to memorize more than one set of talking points, so everyone is a Republican who's not a leftist. Not Republican? Not Leftist? At the same time? That would make your head explode

Oh stop, already. Come down off the fucking cross. Nothing I'm saying are talking points. Everything I say can be sourced with facts. Nothing you say can, though. Everything you say and believe relies on faith. The faith that the rich and corporations will act a certain way if given a huge tax cut. And just like religious faith, it never comes to pass and people's worst instincts always take over. So instead of "trickling down", the rich and corporations hoard their tax cut while you defend that and the cuts to Medicare and Medicaid as a result. It's stupid for anyone who isn't a millionaire or a corporation to support this tax scam because it ends up raising your taxes after all is said and done, while also cutting your Medicare and Medicaid (and SS too).

See, you demonstrate the point above. You aren't smart enough to memorize anything but anti-Republican talking points. So you say I'm a Republican, then I get the anti-Republican talking points. Not knowing you're an idiot doesn't make you not an idiot.

Yet you don't disagree with anything I said...you've managed to vomit out a response to everything except the point I made. You think you can rebrand yourself as something not tied to the GOP? You can't. Republican = Conservative = Libertarian = Klansman = Teabag = Trumpanzee

Same shit, different polish.

All you end up doing is making this about yourself and your precious feelings and fragile ego. There is no intellectual support for your belief system. None. It's entirely reliant on faith. And when that faith is challenged, you do what all zealots do; you cry and whine and bitch about how mean people are to you for having such stupid beliefs in the first place.

Get. Over. Yourself.

I said the Trump tax cuts are better than nothing.

And you base this on absolutely nothing other than faith. "Nothing" would have been better than these tax cuts. Literally, actual nothing would have been better. This tax cut will cause inflation, it will cause trillion dollar deficits, and it will cause cuts to programs you either rely on now, or will rely on in the future. You see no benefit from this and in the end, it's going to be a net tax increase for you. But because you're a Conservative, you welcome making things harder for yourself in order to make things easier for some rich person you don't know, who doesn't give a shit about you. I don't get that self-inflicting harm. It's something you seem to fetishize, and I don't know why and don't even care.

, but they aren't nearly big enough. Too difficult a concept for you to grasp. It requires at least a two digit IQ, something you just don't have.

Not big enough!? They're at least $1.5T. FFS, are you stupid or is this an act?

And FYI, corporations aren't people, no idea what you're talking about. They are property, the property of their owners. Taxing my property then me again on the same money is taxing the same money twice. Hence the term "double taxation."

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You're obviously NOT a business owner, nor does it seem you've actually ever worked for a business before. Did you know this tax cut allows rich people to change how they get their income so they pay no taxes at all? How'd that work out for Kansas? So terribly that Republicans voted to repeal the tax cut specifically because it didn't deliver on a single promise made of it.

You're not smart enough to grasp that, are you?

There's nothing to grasp when you throw diarrhea against the wall and call it "policy".

 

[OKTexas]

I already told you dip shit, the commiecrats refused to vote for middle class tax cuts. They'd rather screw the middle class than give Trump a victory. It's that resist thing..

That is not a reason why the Conservatives made your tax cut temporary and the tax cut for the rich permanent. Why didn't they make your tax cut permanent and the cut for the wealthy temporary?

Asked and answered, and the tax breaks for wealthy individuals expire at the same time as every one else. Yep, you're not too smart.


.

The 50% tax cut for corporations is permanent

Dems will have to repeal it once they take over.....right after they tear down the wall

50%? You're not very good at math are ya?


.

 

[kaz]

I'm a conservative! That's some pretty strong smack. Do you do this for a living? Seriously, I mean wow.

Yes, you're a Conservative

Stopped reading here since you are addressing Republicans instead of me. But this is hilarious. You're actually proud of being too stupid to give me anything but anti-Republican talking points. The idea of actually processing my views instead of parroting Nancy Pelosi is just inconceivable to you, and apparently proudly so.

Speaking of Nancy Pelosi, what's wrong with her exactly? Does she have Altzeimer's?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Where is your proof?
Don't see ONE link to any FACTS! All those comments have LINKS! Where are YOURS???
View attachment 176572

Bush43 = Worst Modern President

Well while I'm disappointed in GWB in recent year and his support of Obama/et.al and angst about Trump here is why GWB will go down in history as one of the great presidents after
a few years recollection! People like you NEVER probably lived through these events.

View attachment 176604

Bush 43 gave up the worst terrorist attack in history

And started the 3rd longest war in US history based on lies and personal grudges


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Of course coming from someone who hasn't cared that according to Alan Gutmacher Institute, a leading proponent of abortion on demand,
claims that there have been more than 50 million babies have been murdered in the U.S. since Roe Vs. Wade,
what would you care about the 3,888,000 children that would have died if Saddam still in power?

In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports

PLUS here are your buddies supporting, actually calling for Saddam's removal!

Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.


Pre-War Quotes from Democrats


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons

of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons,

and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them.

Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth,

not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons

and the missiles to deliver them." 
 President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

"Fateful decisions will be made in the days and weeks ahead. At issue is nothing less than the fundamental

question of whether or not we can keep the most lethal weapons known to mankind out of the hands of an

unreconstructed tyrant and aggressor who is in the same league as the most brutal dictators of this century." 


en. Joe Biden (D, DE), Feb. 12, 1998

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons

of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance

with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford

to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path." 
 Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of

a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." 
 Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." 


Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions

(including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's

refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." 


Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998. "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and

biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the

development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has

made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." 
 Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." 


Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time,

Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs

continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is

doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States

and our allies." 
 Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region.

He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of

delivering them." 
 Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." 


Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will

continue for as long as Saddam is in power." 
 Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." 


Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some

stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his

chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." 


Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's

weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate.

Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..." 
 John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002


"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm

Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real

and grave threat to our security." 
 Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons

and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always

underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." 


Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution

that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity.

This he has refused to do." 
 Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild

his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also

given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked,

Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying

to develop nuclear weapons." 
 Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a

number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. 


Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ....

He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ...

And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of

mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...." 


Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Actually I do care, I am vehemently anti-abortion. Go to any abortion thread and you will find I am against it .

Your stupid little partisan box does not fit on me. I am not a Dem and those are not my buddies and none of them sent my fellow troops to their death for nothing.

So try again you moronic partisan zealot


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[The Derp]

OH sure well HERE is your proof of ONE f...king year of surplus...

OMFG, your own stupid chart shows a budget surplus from 1998-2001, you stupid, lying, bullshit propagandist.

But hey I don't know where you were but 2001??? Let's see recession that started under clinton, Dot.com bust...again Clinton, and oh yea 9/11 again look up Gorelick Memo!

The recession that started in January 2001 ended by October 2001. GDP growth didn't even decline in 2001, it was still positive. All the market losses on 9/11 were regained 2 months later. The reason why the economy sucked for Bush is Occam's Razor; because Conservatives simply cannot effectively manage an economy. Instead of squandering the surpluses on trickle-down tax cuts, Bush the Dumber should have used it to construct a smart grid that would have employed thousands of out-of-work tech nerds. Instead, those out-of-work tech nerds got jobs at Starbucks and McDonald's, because you cut taxes for the rich and promised it would trickle down. It didn't. All it did was fuel a housing bubble that was responsible for all of Bush's growth.

 

[The Derp]

Strawman. I didn't say that my "definition" changes. My ability to know what the point I was making changes.

So typically Conservative

I'm just laughing at you now. I pointed out you're too dim witted to memorize two sets of talking points, so I simply have to be a Republican so you can use those or you're completely lost, and you keep proving it!

OMG, OMG, OMG, you called me a conservative, I can't handle it, that's just evil. I'm going to cry now.

Happy?

Idiot

Nothing I'm saying are talking points, and you haven't bothered to find one to use as an example. It seems to me that "talking points" to you means anything you don't have an explanation for, that you don't want to admit on a fucking message board.

Such a goddamned egomaniac.

 

[kaz]

OH sure well HERE is your proof of ONE f...king year of surplus...

OMFG, your own stupid chart shows a budget surplus from 1998-2001, you stupid, lying, bullshit propagandist.

Right back at cha. If there was a "budget surplus," then why did the national debt go up every year?

And why does the government use cash accounting instead of accrual accounting? Because they want to hide the liabilities that went up