Does GDP growth mean Federal Tax revenue growth?

[The Derp]

That's what I said. You count it double.

No you fucking don't.

Sigh...

I mean at this point...I don't even know what more to say other than you're a fucking idiot who has no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

You said there was no deficit.

That means you are counting taxes as general revenue because without the social security taxes, there was a deficit

Even though you netted social security taxes against revenue, you're counting them as a trust fund.

1+1=2. You didn't know that, LOL. And I called you an idiot. Nailed it ...

And again, by claiming we had a surplus at all means you have to ignore unfunded liabilities. That's like saying you didn't have a deficit because you're ignoring that the balance on your credit cards went up by more than you saved

There was no deficit! The meme that Healthmyths posted even showed there were budget surpluses from 1998-2001.

Now you're changing the parameters of your argument again to whine about "unfunded liabilities" and how that somehow invalidates the actual budget surpluses Clinton ran from 1998-01 that paid down Public Debt.

Do I need to show you actual Treasury Statements showing a decline in Public Debt? OK, don't say I didn't warn you...

Monthly Statement on the Public Debt, December 1999
Total Public Debt Outstanding: $5,776,091,000

Monthly Statement on the Public Debt, December 2000
Total Public Debt Oustanding: $5,662,216,000

So is $5,776,091,000 > or < $5,662,216,000?

The only way that the Public Debt could be reduced is if the government runs a budget surplus. That's the only way it can happen. So since Clinton reduced public debt as noted above, that means that there was a budget surplus.

 

[kaz]

I said it twice ... today ... to you ...

Today...so...yeah...maybe you just came up with that position today for the sake of your argument, which you've already said you have no problems redefining the parameters of before...so...yeah...whatever

So you're saying I read you like a book, huh. I knew you were going to call on me for that, so I cleverly put in two references before you asked.

Thank you for admitting how much smarter than you that you think I am.

BTW, if you want an older reference, read the small government libertarian link to my OP on the same subject where I said the same thing

 

[kaz]

That's what I said. You count it double.

No you fucking don't.

Sigh...

I mean at this point...I don't even know what more to say other than you're a fucking idiot who has no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

You said there was no deficit.

That means you are counting taxes as general revenue because without the social security taxes, there was a deficit

Even though you netted social security taxes against revenue, you're counting them as a trust fund.

1+1=2. You didn't know that, LOL. And I called you an idiot. Nailed it ...

And again, by claiming we had a surplus at all means you have to ignore unfunded liabilities. That's like saying you didn't have a deficit because you're ignoring that the balance on your credit cards went up by more than you saved

There was no deficit! The meme that Healthmyths posted even showed there were budget surpluses from 1998-2001.

Now you're changing the parameters of your argument again to whine about "unfunded liabilities" and how that somehow invalidates the actual budget surpluses Clinton ran from 1998-01 that paid down Public Debt.

Do I need to show you actual Treasury Statements showing a decline in Public Debt? OK, don't say I didn't warn you...

Monthly Statement on the Public Debt, December 1999
Total Public Debt Outstanding: $5,776,091,000

Monthly Statement on the Public Debt, December 2000
Total Public Debt Oustanding: $5,662,216,000

So is $5,776,091,000 > or < $5,662,216,000?

The only way that the Public Debt could be reduced is if the government runs a budget surplus. That's the only way it can happen. So since Clinton reduced public debt as noted above, that means that there was a budget surplus.

Figures, you don't know the difference between cash accounting and accrual accounting. There isn't much that you do know other than what leftist lawyers told you what to think, Speed Racer.

And like a good little leftist drone, you think it! Read all this crap you wrote.

You don't even know what an unrealized liability is? You could also call it an unfunded liability. And you didn't grasp my credit card example.

Do you have Mulder's "I want to believe" poster, except where he means aliens, you mean leftist lawyers?

 

[The Derp]

They are fiscally conservative

Since when is adding at least $1.5T to the debt "fiscally conservative"?

Strawman. I never said that.

You just said "they are fiscally Conservative".

They just voted to add at least $1.5T to the debt.

So make up your fucking mind.

I said Trump and the Republicans are not fiscally conservative, they spends like Democrats, Speed Racer. Spending is out of control.

They don't spend like Democrats. They cut taxes which create deficits. Spending like Democrats would mean raising taxes and increasing spending on social programs. Trump proposed cutting Medicare and Medicaid.

Spending isn't the issue here...the issue here is you reduced revenues, which created deficits, which add to the debt.

You just supported the current tax plan, even having the gall to say it wasn't big enough. I guess adding at least $1.5T to the debt is peanuts for you. How can you claim to be "fiscally Conservative" while supporting massive, trillion dollar increases to the debt? Simple; you call yourself "kaz" and label yourself as a "libertarian". That way, you can completely redefine the parameters of what you meant before, as you wiggle your way in an increasingly narrow argument.

We had a $500B deficit. Then you cut taxes. Now the deficit stands at $1T. You are simultaneously opposed to the deficit, yet you support it because it comes as a result of the tax cutting that you also support.

So that's why I don't really give a shit what label you give yourself; you're a shitty person regardless.

You're a hoot. Dumb as a brick, and proud of it!I simply have to be a Republican or you have no talking points. That's why you're so frantic that I simply have to be a Republican.I want to slash the military, repeal morality laws, drastically cut spending and all you hear is Republican, Republican, Republican!LOL, what an idiot

You are here defending Conservative policy, sometimes even contradicting yourself in your own defense of it, and you expect me to just accept it? Why the fuck should I?

 

[The Derp]

o you're saying I read you like a book, huh. I knew you were going to call on me for that, so I cleverly put in two references before you asked.

Two references from today which proves nothing other than you evolved that position for the sake of the argument. Which means you do what you always do; say something broad, ambiguous and vague, then wiggle around within narrowing parameters so you can save face.

What a fucking loser.

BTW, if you want an older reference, read the small government libertarian link to my OP on the same subject where I said the same thing

LOL! Which again, proves nothing! All it proves is that you're taking careful steps to craft a facade on the internet to help you move past all the stupid shit you believed and supported before.

BARF.

 

[kaz]

They are fiscally conservative

Since when is adding at least $1.5T to the debt "fiscally conservative"?

Strawman. I never said that.

You just said "they are fiscally Conservative".

They just voted to add at least $1.5T to the debt.

So make up your fucking mind

I said tea parties just voted to add at least $1.5T to the debt? You're full of shit, I didn't say that

.

I said Trump and the Republicans are not fiscally conservative, they spends like Democrats, Speed Racer. Spending is out of control.

They don't spend like Democrats. They cut taxes which create deficits. Spending like Democrats would mean raising taxes and increasing spending on social programs. Trump proposed cutting Medicare and Medicaid.

Spending isn't the issue here...the issue here is you reduced revenues, which created deficits, which add to the debt.

derp, derp, derp, Marxist ideology. Got it

So that's why I don't really give a shit what label you give yourself; you're a shitty person regardless

I believe in personal choice, freedom of speech and limited government. You believe in neither of those, you believe in authoritarian leftism. The shitty person looks back at you in the mirror

 

[The Derp]

I said tea parties just voted to add at least $1.5T to the debt? You're full of shit, I didn't say that

The teabags voted for the tax cut. Freedom Caucus = Teabags. You know nothing, Jon Snow. Now cue the "No True Scotsman" defense of voting to add at least $1.5T to the debt. How the Freedom Caucus are not "true" Libertarians...or some such bullshit.

Support from Conservative Freedom Caucus boosts tax bill
Conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus said Thursday they support a sweeping tax package speeding toward votes in Congress next week, giving GOP leaders a boost from a key faction as they work to deliver a major legislative victory to President Donald Drumpf.

"I think it's going to pass. I think you're going to see the vast majority of the Freedom Caucus people vote for it," said Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio.

The leader of the caucus, Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., said, "I know enough (about the agreement) to know that at this point, I don't have any alarm bells going off."

The Freedom Caucus is a key constituency for House GOP leaders because, with more than 30 members, a united caucus could kill any bill that lacks support from Democrats. Congressional Democrats, who were excluded from crafting the tax package, have been united against it.​

derp, derp, derp, Marxist ideology. Got it

No, what happened was that you tried to equate Conservatives and Libertarians adding $1.5T to the debt via tax cuts, with Democrats who raise taxes, reduce deficits, and increase spending on social programs.

The only derpiness here is your constant hypocrisy and shifting of the goalposts. You make vague and ambiguous statements that you then spend the next few posts having to walk back because you didn't bother to put any effort into what you were saying and doing.

The reason is always the same; you're a lazy, entitled brat.

I believe in personal choice, freedom of speech and limited government. You believe in neither of those, you believe in authoritarian leftism. The shitty person looks back at you in the mirror

I don't really care what you say you believe...because you're just going to contradict it in the next post anyway.

 

[kaz]

I said tea parties just voted to add at least $1.5T to the debt? You're full of shit, I didn't say that

The teabags voted for the tax cut. Freedom Caucus = Teabags

That wasn't what I disputed. You were begging the question by repeating your inane belief that you know more than the field of economics about the effect of tax cuts on deficits

I believe in personal choice, freedom of speech and limited government. You believe in neither of those, you believe in authoritarian leftism. The shitty person looks back at you in the mirror

I don't really care what you say you believe...because you're just going to contradict it in the next post anyway.[/QUOTE]

You just can't come up with any examples since your first one crashed and burned that I said I'm for military cuts today and I showed you a link from years ago where I also advocated military cuts.

Leftists, the more wrong you are, the more you believe what you say

 

[The Derp]

1) You were begging the question by repeating your inane belief that you know more than the field of economics about the effect of tax cuts on deficits

There is no debate that your tax cut adds to the deficit. Prior to the tax cut, the deficit was $500B. After the tax cut, the deficit is $1T. That's because cutting taxes reduces revenues. Even before spending was addressed, the tax cut alone adds $500B to the deficit.

You still believe, even after everything has indicated otherwise, that tax cuts pay for themselves in increased revenue from consumption. THAT IS NOT TRUE AND HAS NEVER HAPPENED, EVER. Why are you still pretending as if it does?

2) You equated voting for the budget with voting for the tax bill

No I didn't. I've been talking about the tax bill this entire time. Now you're trying to do that Conservative thing of pretending we were talking about something else that we weren't.

Even before the spending bill, the tax cut ballooned the deficit to over $1T. THAT IS WHY CONSERVATIVES WAIVED PAYGO RULES FOR 2018, you stupid shithead. Under PayGo rules, if the deficit reaches $1T, it automatically triggers cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Maybe you don't remember, but these rules were established at your insistence in 2010.

Now, 7 years later, you toss those rules aside for political reasons...because you didn't want voters to know the negative affect this tax cut causes to Medicare and Medicaid ahead of the 2018 elections. So instead, you delayed those cuts by a year. Which is only going to make them worse.

So here's the timeline for you:

December 18th, 2017: Trump & the Conservative Tax Bill passes and is signed into law. Deficit goes up to $1T.
December 22nd, 2017: Trump & the Conservatives waive 2010 PayGo rules for Medicare and Medicaid
February 9th, 2018: Trump & the Conservative spending bill is passed and signed into law. Deficit remains at $1T.

So the PayGo rules were waived 4 days after the tax bill was passed.

You just can't come up with any examples since your first one crashed and burned that I said I'm for military cuts today and I showed you a link from years ago where I also advocated military cuts.

I didn't see any link. There's no link on your profile page to anything like that. And besides, it doesn't fucking matter because you only rebranded to this facade 7 years ago. So it's not like these are long-held beliefs of yours or you're very serious about them anyway.

 

[The Derp]

Figures, you don't know the difference between cash accounting and accrual accounting. There isn't much that you do know other than what leftist lawyers told you what to think, Speed Racer.

No, what's going on here is that you're making shit up as you go, to fit the ever-narrowing parameters of which you crafted for yourself. The only way Public Debt could be reduced is by running budget surpluses. That is what the GAO says:

When the budget is in deficit, the government borrows from the public; when the budget is in surplus, the government can reduce the amount of debt held by the public.​

Again, because I know how hard reading is for you:

When the budget is in deficit, the government borrows from the public; when the budget is in surplus, the government can reduce the amount of debt held by the public.
​

And once more for good measure because repetition is the key to learning:

When the budget is in deficit, the government borrows from the public; when the budget is in surplus, the government can reduce the amount of debt held by the public.​

So can we now dispense with the presumption that you know what the fuck you're talking about? It's obvious you don't, and you're just trolling now for the sake of your own personal satisfaction. I get so sick of Conservative egomaniacs like you, who think they're entitled to having wrong opinions and wrong beliefs simply by virtue of the fact that they're so zealous about them. What you need to grow up and understand, buddy, is that just because you want something to be true doesn't make it so. Just because your ego needs validation and protection doesn't mean you're entitled to it.

And like a good little leftist drone, you think it! Read all this crap you wrote.You don't even know what an unrealized liability is? You could also call it an unfunded liability. And you didn't grasp my credit card example.Do you have Mulder's "I want to believe" poster, except where he means aliens, you mean leftist lawyers?

What's going on here is that you're scrambling to find some way to justify your shit position, and you do that by pretending there's some unfunded liability out there that magically, somehow, dispels the budget surpluses that existed from 1998-01. Tell me something, these unfunded liabilities...how far out are they? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? 100 years? Since the liabilities are funded by taxes, you can't really say they're unfunded because they are reliant on the amount of taxes collected. That is directly affected by the tax rates (which you just lowered, by the way) and the economy that generates revenues.

So the bellyaching about "unfunded liabilities" is just an impotent Conservative tactic to pretend that the fiscal picture is scarier than it really is. And when you drill down into the specifics of the "unfunded liabilities" almost always the Conservative screeching about it cannot provide details, cannot answer basic questions like "how long out are you looking?", and never can articulate for themselves what they're obviously trying to regurgitate from more articulate, but no more thoughtful, Conservative sources.

So why do you do that? What's the reason? Is it because you're an insecure person? Is it because you come to these boards looking for an ego boost? Looking for a confirmation of your biases? How about the fact that some of the people who post here, from whom you glean a lot of this garbage you say you believe, are likely Russian trolls pretending to be American for the benefit of tricking you? In all this why isn't "maybe I'm not as smart as I think" an option for you?

 

[kaz]

I didn't see any link

Here it is again

What is a small government libertarian?

There's no link on your profile page to anything like that. And besides, it doesn't fucking matter because you only rebranded to this facade 7 years ago So it's not like these are long-held beliefs of yours or you're very serious about them anyway.

What an arrogant SOB. You know everything, don't you? How do you get your head through doorways?

And actually it was a process. I read Ayn Rand in college. I agreed with her ideas, but didn't really think of it in terms of current political parties. I was always pretty libertarian socially and fiscally.

Under Reagan, I considered myself a Reagan conservative.

Under HW, I left the party because I didn't consider him or the Republican Party Reagan conservatives.

I voted for Ross Perot in 92. Then Harry Browne in 96. During that period I started calling myself "libertarian." Though I'm still not actually a Libertarian.

From the early 90s to the mid 00s, I changed my views on some key issues.

1) I supported Gulf War I. By Gulf War II I realized that our participation in the ME was endless and went nowhere and became for getting out of rather than deeper in those conflicts
2) I switched from pro-life to pro-choice
3) I switched from pro war on drugs to anti-war on drugs
4) I became against marriage being a government function
5) I went from pro-death penalty to anti-death penalty

The main thing I've learned is that government solutions to problems suck. I did not change my view of morality, I just realized the best solution regardless of position on particular issues is to get government out of it

 

[The Derp]

What is a small government libertarian?

See, I was expecting something a little older than 3 1/2 years ago. So you didn't dispel the notion that you're only pretending for the sake of these boards, and that you don't really have these beliefs; you're just posturing. What is this post from 2014 supposed to prove? Not consistency, that's for damn sure...

What an arrogant SOB. You know everything, don't you? How do you get your head through doorways?

I never said I know everything, but I sure as hell know more than you. I mean you're still arguing from the position that there weren't any budget surpluses during Clinton, that the Public Debt wasn't reduced, and that there are some mysterious "unfunded liabilities", of which you have no details, that somehow, magically invalidate the actual budget surpluses the GAO says are and were used to reduce Public Debt.

What you do is throw diarrhea against the wall, and expect people to discern what that shitstain means. It's so fuckin' lazy and entitled.

And actually it was a process. I read Ayn Rand in college. I agreed with her ideas, but didn't really think of it in terms of current political parties. I was always pretty libertarian socially and fiscally. Under Reagan, I considered myself a Reagan conservative. Under HW, I left the party because I didn't consider him or the Republican Party Reagan conservatives. I voted for Ross Perot in 92. Then Harry Browne in 96. During that period I started calling myself "libertarian." Though I'm still not actually a Libertarian.

Sigh...I don't give a shit about whatever personal history you're concocting for your message board character. I do the same thing for Dungeons and Dragons, but at least I get some kind of satisfaction out of it. And you read Ayn Rand in college? I read that shit in Junior High because we had to.

As John Rogers says: “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

The main thing I've learned is that government solutions to problems suck. I did not change my view of morality, I just realized the best solution regardless of position on particular issues is to get government out of it

Then you've learned NOTHING, and are proving it true that your brain has been hacked and turned to mush.

 

[kaz]

What is a small government libertarian?

See, I was expecting something a little older than 3 1/2 years ago

Don't give a shit

What an arrogant SOB. You know everything, don't you? How do you get your head through doorways?

I never said I know everything, but I sure as hell know more than you

Yes, you keep telling me you know what I think. How do you get your head through doorways? And you obviously don't. And you don't grasp not leftist and not Republican at the same time, you're dumb as a brick

 

[The Derp]

Don't give a shit

Well, you probably should since it was your defense of your inconsistency. But we can't go one post without you exercising the typical Conservative action of absconding responsibility and accountability. Whatever. Moving on...

Yes, you keep telling me you know what I think. How do you get your head through doorways? And you obviously don't. And you don't grasp not leftist and not Republican at the same time, you're dumb as a brick

I don't believe you're genuine in pretty much anything you say. I doubt your sincerity. I doubt your commitment. The only thing I don't doubt is the size and fragility of your ego.

 

[kaz]

Don't give a shit

Well, you probably should since it was your defense of your inconsistency. But we can't go one post without you exercising the typical Conservative action of absconding responsibility and accountability. Whatever. Moving on...

You haven't listed a single thing I'm inconsistent on.

What I am inconsistent with is your view that not leftist = Republican. This is just a bizarre defense mechanism your brain came up to process your inability to grasp my claim that I'm not leftist and not Republican ... at the same time. You can't handle it

Yes, you keep telling me you know what I think. How do you get your head through doorways? And you obviously don't. And you don't grasp not leftist and not Republican at the same time, you're dumb as a brick

I don't believe you're genuine in pretty much anything you say. I doubt your sincerity. I doubt your commitment. The only thing I don't doubt is the size and fragility of your ego.

Of course you don't. I said I'm not leftist and yet I'm not a Republican. Your brain can't process that contradiction. And then you couldn't use your anti-Republican talking points, which is all you have

 

[The Derp]

You haven't listed a single thing I'm inconsistent on.

"Fiscal conservatism" for starters.

You say you're a fiscal Conservative, yet you think the Trump tax bill -that adds $1.5T to the debt- should have been bigger. Which means it would have added more to the debt. So you're not a fiscal conservative, you're a fraud. Secondly, this libertarian character you created for the boards is a load of horseshit too, and I don't buy it for a second. I think you're just trying to pretend like you're an intellectual, when you're just a regular old moron who thinks labels mean everything.

What I am inconsistent with is your view that not leftist = Republican. This is just a bizarre defense mechanism your brain came up to process your inability to grasp my claim that I'm not leftist and not Republican ... at the same time. You can't handle it

Again, your obsession with the labels only proves my point that you're barely skin-deep and you lack depth of character and ideas. You're a fraud, and I think you know it. I think all this shit; from moving the goalposts to the (unaware) hypocrisy of the labels you give yourself, is all to serve an ego that is so fragile that any criticism of your positions and beliefs gets treated as a personal attack against your character. What you've done is made your bullshit positions central to your character...so if we pull at the thread of just one of those bullshit positions you have, the entire fucking sweater of bullshit unravels and we're left with a fetid, stinking mass of poor instincts and bad ideas. I mean you said yourself that Ayn Rand shaped your belief system. That shows in your lack of responsibility for the positions you have and the lack of accountability for the statements you make.

In short, you need to get the fuck over yourself.

Of course you don't. I said I'm not leftist and yet I'm not a Republican. Your brain can't process that contradiction. And then you couldn't use your anti-Republican talking points, which is all you have

See, I think you obsess over the labels because you think it gives you an out by pretending to be something for a moment that might contradict it. I call you Conservative because you repeat Conservative shit here. Am I to really, honestly believe that you came to the positions you have through a thoughtful process of deliberation and research? Or did you already have these biases and you just look for confirmation of them because you're lazy as fuck? I think it's the latter.

 

[kaz]

You haven't listed a single thing I'm inconsistent on.

"Fiscal conservatism" for starters.

You say you're a fiscal Conservative, yet you think the Trump tax bill -that adds $1.5T to the debt- should have been bigger. Which means it would have added more to the debt. So you're not a fiscal conservative, you're a fraud

You don't know what fiscal conservatism is. No, socialism isn't fiscal conservative, Speed Racer

What I am inconsistent with is your view that not leftist = Republican. This is just a bizarre defense mechanism your brain came up to process your inability to grasp my claim that I'm not leftist and not Republican ... at the same time. You can't handle it

Again, your obsession with the labels

Gawd you're stupid. You're the one obsessed with labels. I said I'm a libertarian to give you an idea what my views are. You're rolling on the floor kicking yourself in circles saying you're a conservative, you're a conservative, you're a conservative.

BTW, a bag over you head would help with your hyperventilating.

You're desperately clinging to that I have to be a "conservative." Then you argue that I'm not conservative. buy a mirror, it will change your life

 

[The Derp]

You don't know what fiscal conservatism is. No, socialism isn't fiscal conservative, Speed Racer

Socialism? What?

You're a hypocrite on "fiscal conservatism" because you support a tax cut that adds at least $1.5T to the debt. In fact, you said yourself that the cut should have been bigger, which would have resulted in more added to the debt.

So you call yourself a "fiscal conservative", yet you support trillion dollar deficits.

That's what makes you inconsistent.

And from that thread, the entire sweater unravels.

Gawd you're stupid. You're the one obsessed with labels. I said I'm a libertarian to give you an idea what my views are. You're rolling on the floor kicking yourself in circles saying you're a conservative, you're a conservative, you're a conservative.

I'm not the one who declared myself a "libertarian"...you did. I'm not the one who declared myself a "liberal"...you did. All you've done is try and label yourself here, and each time you do you end up contradicting whatever it is you said before.

So you do that Conservative thing of moving the goalposts and changing the parameters, all to spare your ego on a fucking internet message board. Is it really worth your integrity to do that?

You're desperately clinging to that I have to be a "conservative." Then you argue that I'm not conservative. buy a mirror, it will change your life

Well, here's the thing; you're here arguing for fiscal conservatism vis-a-vis tax cuts, which do nothing other than increase the deficit and add to the debt. So that is uniquely and exclusively a Conservative thing to do. From that singular thread, your entire sweater unravels to reveal itself as an agenda that is almost entirely in line with that of the Conservatives, whose policies you're here on the record supporting. Paying vague, ambiguous lip service to your vague and ambiguous feelings about the military doesn't change the hardcore Conservative beliefs you espouse and propagate on these boards.