Even Wall Street thinks this tax bill is a loser

[The Derp]

No dummy he ran a campaign to win the electoral college, go find a 5th grader to explain it to you.

No he didn't. He only started saying that after he lost the popular vote.

 

[BluesLegend]

No dummy he ran a campaign to win the electoral college, go find a 5th grader to explain it to you.

No he didn't. He only started saying that after he lost the popular vote.

You lie.

 

[The Derp]

If I get to keep more of my own money because of a tax cut, I can only cause more growth by running out and spending it?

Exactly.

'm not sure if I've ever made that argument, but if you have a post where I did, I'd like see it.

So now your argument in favor of tax cuts is...what? You can't make the argument that it leads to increased spending, because we have data showing it doesn't. And since you can't make that argument anymore, there is no real argument to make other than the highly emotional one you made about "keeping more of my own money"...totally emotional argument. This tax cut wouldn't even result in that, as you'll end up paying higher taxes by 2027.

Some do, some don't.

My, that's a strange position change on your part. So which tax cuts create growth, then?

They do create jobs and generate growth.

How? If you're conceding the point that spending doesn't increase from tax cuts, then how do they create jobs? They don't. You're just bullshitting now because you realized your position is foolish and wrong.

I disagree with your misinterpretation of data.

On what grounds? None. You're just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. We just went through this shit 15 years ago with Bush, who promised his tax cuts would create jobs (he lost 400,000 after 8 years). We just went through this shit 5 years ago in Kansas with Brownback, who promised his tax cuts would be "a shot of adrenaline" (KS's GDP growth rate after the tax cuts was below the national average).

The only one misinterpreting data is you, deliberately so, like when you tried to pretend Bush created jobs by cherry picking certain sectors of the private sector job market instead of using the total numbers like honest people would.

You're a fraud.

 

[The Derp]

You lie.

No, you're the fucking liar.

 

[BluesLegend]

You lie.

No, you're the fucking liar.

Trump won fair and square and you are being a crybaby The deck was stacked in Hillary's favor big time and Trump still whooped her ass. She was the professional politician with the current president and 4 former US presidents supporting her, plus the media, plus a $1.2 billion dollar campaign war chest and she still lost. Its laughable that you people have sour grapes.

 

[The Derp]

Trump won fair and square and you are being a crybaby

Back up...hold on. You contended that Trump was campaigning to win the electoral college, yet he never said that until after he lost the popular vote.

That is important because it speaks to the dishonesty in your position.

 

[BluesLegend]

Trump won fair and square and you are being a crybaby

Back up...hold on. You contended that Trump was campaigning to win the electoral college, yet he never said that until after he lost the popular vote.

That is important because it speaks to the dishonesty in your position.

as did every presidential candidate in history. You don't have to declare your intention to put your socks on, you just put them on, its obvious. That's why Trump spent very little time or money California a state he had no hope of winning and instead spent time and money on the three blue states he won from Hillary e.g. PA, MI, and WI.

 

[The Derp]

as did every presidential candidate in history. You don't have to declare your intention to put your socks on, you just put them on, its obvious. That's why Trump spent very little time or money California a state he had no hope of winning and instead spent time and money on the three blue states he won from Hillary e.g. PA, MI, and WI.

No, no...you see, Trump didn't say that shit until after he lost the popular vote. Popularity means everything to Trump, so losing the popular vote bruised his ego so much because he knows he wasn't the more popular candidate. He does that type of shit all the time.

 

[BluesLegend]

as did every presidential candidate in history. You don't have to declare your intention to put your socks on, you just put them on, its obvious. That's why Trump spent very little time or money California a state he had no hope of winning and instead spent time and money on the three blue states he won from Hillary e.g. PA, MI, and WI.

No, no...you see, Trump didn't say that shit until after he lost the popular vote. Popularity means everything to Trump, so losing the popular vote bruised his ego so much because he knows he wasn't the more popular candidate. He does that type of shit all the time.

Trump won against all odds and this bruised his ego...

 

[The Derp]

Trump won against all odds and this bruised his ego...

Yeah, it did bruise his ego. That's why he dreamed up excuse ("I didn't campaign to win the popular vote") after excuse ("5 million illegals voted").

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If I get to keep more of my own money because of a tax cut, I can only cause more growth by running out and spending it?

Exactly.

'm not sure if I've ever made that argument, but if you have a post where I did, I'd like see it.

So now your argument in favor of tax cuts is...what? You can't make the argument that it leads to increased spending, because we have data showing it doesn't. And since you can't make that argument anymore, there is no real argument to make other than the highly emotional one you made about "keeping more of my own money"...totally emotional argument. This tax cut wouldn't even result in that, as you'll end up paying higher taxes by 2027.

Some do, some don't.

My, that's a strange position change on your part. So which tax cuts create growth, then?

They do create jobs and generate growth.

How? If you're conceding the point that spending doesn't increase from tax cuts, then how do they create jobs? They don't. You're just bullshitting now because you realized your position is foolish and wrong.

I disagree with your misinterpretation of data.

On what grounds? None. You're just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. We just went through this shit 15 years ago with Bush, who promised his tax cuts would create jobs (he lost 400,000 after 8 years). We just went through this shit 5 years ago in Kansas with Brownback, who promised his tax cuts would be "a shot of adrenaline" (KS's GDP growth rate after the tax cuts was below the national average).

The only one misinterpreting data is you, deliberately so, like when you tried to pretend Bush created jobs by cherry picking certain sectors of the private sector job market instead of using the total numbers like honest people would.

You're a fraud.

If I get to keep more of my own money because of a tax cut, I can only cause more growth by running out and spending it?

Exactly.

What if I go out and invest it?

So now your argument in favor of tax cuts is...what?

Increased economic growth and increased employment.

My, that's a strange position change on your part.

No, I've always said that some tax cuts pay for themselves, some don't.

On what grounds?

On the grounds of previous tax cuts increasing economic growth and employment.

We just went through this shit 15 years ago with Bush, who promised his tax cuts would create jobs

When did he cut taxes? What happened to jobs 1...2...3 years after? What happened to GDP?
Or after Reagan cut taxes? Or LBJ? Or Coolidge?

KS's GDP growth rate after the tax cuts was below the national average

Post a chart of their GSP for the last decade. We can compare that to US GDP for the last decade.

 

[hadit]

He didn't run to win the 'popular vote' he ran to win. Send a memo to Hillary.

So he ran a campaign to lose the popular vote?

Didn't have to. Didn't care about it, because that's not how you win.

 

[The Derp]

What if I go out and invest it?

You're gonna have to be more specific. I know that's a challenge for you because you like to create wide parameters you can wiggle around within as you try to improvise a shit argument.

Increased economic growth and increased employment.

But we know already from very recent history that cutting taxes for the rich didn't increase economic growth, and that during that period we lost 400,000 jobs. So what makes you think this, other than your own personal theorizing? What evidence leads you to that conclusion that doesn't rely on you invoking what you think is conventional wisdom? Because what you believe or hypothesize about how people behave isn't fact. It's bullshit.

No, I've always said that some tax cuts pay for themselves, some don't.

So you say things like this by design in order to allow yourself room to wiggle within the parameters. So what tax cuts pay for themselves and which ones don't? How about some specific examples you can point to with verifiable data, not your "conventional wisdom", which has as much value as one of my cat's turds?

On the grounds of previous tax cuts increasing economic growth and employment.

Which you are unable to prove beyond a correlation-is-causation argument. You were just handed a link that says the wealthy increased their savings, not their spending, after the Bush Tax Cuts. Savings don't grow the economy. Spending does. And spending didn't increase by the wealthy after they got a tax cut 15 years ago, so why would it magically start increasing now?

When did he cut taxes? What happened to jobs 1...2...3 years after? What happened to GDP?

Bush cut taxes in 2001 and those cuts were accelerated in 2003 for the stated purpose of boosting a housing bubble. We know this because Bush said so himself while campaigning. Here is an article from March of 2004 from Fox News. Here, Bush quite clearly credits the housing bubble (they didn't know it was a bubble at the time, but it was) to his tax cut policy. The same housing bubble that would end up crashing the economy and killing 400,000 net jobs.

Bush Ties Policy to Record Home Ownership
Touting his tax cuts as the economy's savior — and pointing to the strong housing market as proof — Bush said "more people own their own home now than ever." More than 50 percent of minorities owned their own homes in the last three months of 2003 for the first time ever, the president said.​

Or after Reagan cut taxes? Or LBJ? Or Coolidge?

Reagan cut taxes in July 1981, then the country entered a recession that lasted through 1982. So tax cuts caused the recession and job loss, which spiked to 10.8% by the end of 1982. That's what happened after Reagan cut taxes.

LBJ increased spending by 50%.

Coolidge's laissez-faire policies are what caused the Great Depression. But keep touting the 1920's, please. Just don't forget about what happened at the end of the decade.

Post a chart of their GSP for the last decade. We can compare that to US GDP for the last decade.

Well, thankfully, BLS has already done that for us:

And on a more specific level, here's the three years before and after the tax cut in Kansas:

2011
KS GDP Growth: 0.5%
US GDP Growth: 1.5%

2012
KS GDP Growth: 1.4%
US GDP Growth: 2.5%

2013 (Brownback Tax Cuts passed)
KS GDP Growth: 1.9%
US GDP Growth: 1.8%

2014 (First Year of Brownback Tax Cuts):
KS GDP Growth: 1.8%
US GDP Growth: 2.2%

2015:
KS GDP Growth: -0.8%
US GDP Growth: 2.0%

2016:
KS GDP Growth: 0.2%
US GDP Growth: 1.6%

 

[The Derp]

Didn't have to. Didn't care about it, because that's not how you win.

Well, the problem is that Trump's not on record saying this until after he lost the popular vote. It's a small distinction, but one that cuts to the bone of credibility.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What if I go out and invest it?

You're gonna have to be more specific. I know that's a challenge for you because you like to create wide parameters you can wiggle around within as you try to improvise a shit argument.

Increased economic growth and increased employment.

But we know already from very recent history that cutting taxes for the rich didn't increase economic growth, and that during that period we lost 400,000 jobs. So what makes you think this, other than your own personal theorizing? What evidence leads you to that conclusion that doesn't rely on you invoking what you think is conventional wisdom? Because what you believe or hypothesize about how people behave isn't fact. It's bullshit.

No, I've always said that some tax cuts pay for themselves, some don't.

So you say things like this by design in order to allow yourself room to wiggle within the parameters. So what tax cuts pay for themselves and which ones don't? How about some specific examples you can point to with verifiable data, not your "conventional wisdom", which has as much value as one of my cat's turds?

On the grounds of previous tax cuts increasing economic growth and employment.

Which you are unable to prove beyond a correlation-is-causation argument. You were just handed a link that says the wealthy increased their savings, not their spending, after the Bush Tax Cuts. Savings don't grow the economy. Spending does. And spending didn't increase by the wealthy after they got a tax cut 15 years ago, so why would it magically start increasing now?

When did he cut taxes? What happened to jobs 1...2...3 years after? What happened to GDP?

Bush cut taxes in 2001 and those cuts were accelerated in 2003 for the stated purpose of boosting a housing bubble. We know this because Bush said so himself while campaigning. Here is an article from March of 2004 from Fox News. Here, Bush quite clearly credits the housing bubble (they didn't know it was a bubble at the time, but it was) to his tax cut policy. The same housing bubble that would end up crashing the economy and killing 400,000 net jobs.

Bush Ties Policy to Record Home Ownership
Touting his tax cuts as the economy's savior — and pointing to the strong housing market as proof — Bush said "more people own their own home now than ever." More than 50 percent of minorities owned their own homes in the last three months of 2003 for the first time ever, the president said.​

Or after Reagan cut taxes? Or LBJ? Or Coolidge?

Reagan cut taxes in July 1981, then the country entered a recession that lasted through 1982. So tax cuts caused the recession and job loss, which spiked to 10.8% by the end of 1982. That's what happened after Reagan cut taxes.

LBJ increased spending by 50%.

Coolidge's laissez-faire policies are what caused the Great Depression. But keep touting the 1920's, please. Just don't forget about what happened at the end of the decade.

Post a chart of their GSP for the last decade. We can compare that to US GDP for the last decade.

Well, thankfully, BLS has already done that for us:

And on a more specific level, here's the three years before and after the tax cut in Kansas:

2011
KS GDP Growth: 0.5%
US GDP Growth: 1.5%

2012
KS GDP Growth: 1.4%
US GDP Growth: 2.5%

2013 (Brownback Tax Cuts passed)
KS GDP Growth: 1.9%
US GDP Growth: 1.8%

2014 (First Year of Brownback Tax Cuts):
KS GDP Growth: 1.8%
US GDP Growth: 2.2%

2015:
KS GDP Growth: -0.8%
US GDP Growth: 2.0%

2016:
KS GDP Growth: 0.2%
US GDP Growth: 1.6%

But we know already from very recent history that cutting taxes for the rich didn't increase economic growth,

I disagree with your misinterpretation of the data.

So you say things like this by design in order to allow yourself room to wiggle within the parameters.

I've always said it. So your claim about what I said was wrong. Or were you lying?

So what tax cuts pay for themselves and which ones don't?

Income tax cuts from very high levels probably pay for themselves.
Capital gains tax cuts usually pay for themselves.
Many other tax cuts don't pay for themselves.

Which you are unable to prove beyond a correlation-is-causation argument.

Right back at ya, Sparky.

You were just handed a link that says the wealthy increased their savings, not their spending, after the Bush Tax Cuts.

And?

Savings don't grow the economy. Spending does.

How does the savings rate in China compare to the US savings rate?

Bush cut taxes in 2001 and those cuts were accelerated in 2003 for the stated purpose of boosting a housing bubble. We know this because Bush said so himself while campaigning.

Bush said, "I want to accelerate my tax cuts to inflate a housing bubble"?
That bastard!!!
Could you post the YouTube video of that?

Reagan cut taxes in July 1981, then the country entered a recession that lasted through 1982.

Yup. It was in all the papers.

So tax cuts caused the recession and job loss,

 

[The Derp]

I disagree with your misinterpretation of the data.

Moody's said that the wealthy increased their savings after the tax cuts. Savings don't grow the economy. That's why Bush's economy was shit until the mortgage bubble (which was also caused by the tax cuts, according to Bush himself). What you've failed to do is provide any evidence that supports your claims that isn't "correlation-is-causation". And you never will.

I've always said it. So your claim about what I said was wrong. Or were you lying?

Sophistry and captiousness for the world to see.

Income tax cuts from very high levels probably pay for themselves.

PROBABLY? So you don't know. Why not just say that? Why posture? So it's just a guess on your part, informed by nothing than your ego. And no, as we linked before, the wealthy do not increase their spending to account for the tax cuts. They increased their savings, which didn't produce revenues...which is why we went from a surplus in 2001 to a record deficit by 2003. We also saw the same thing happen in Kansas. That's why KS' GDP growth post-tax cuts was worse than the rest of the country.

Capital gains tax cuts usually pay for themselves.
Many other tax cuts don't pay for themselves.

Capital Gains tax cuts don't pay for themselves, as we saw in the dotcom bubble burst.

Right back at ya, Sparky.

Wrong. See, the difference between you and me is that I don't rely on what I mistakenly think is "conventional wisdom" to carry my argument. The entire premise of your argument hinges on correlation-is-causation, and you know it. That's why you posted that shit.

You were just handed a link that says the wealthy increased their savings, not their spending, after the Bush Tax Cuts.
And?

AND that means tax cuts for the rich didn't create growth or pay for themselves, despite you theorizing it does in this very post.

How does the savings rate in China compare to the US savings rate?

Increasing the rate of savings will directly reduce economic growth because you're pulling money out of the consumer economy. I'm wondering why you feel the need to do non-sequitur like this? What is it you're hoping to prove?

Bush said, "I want to accelerate my tax cuts to inflate a housing bubble"?

According to Fox News, he was "touting his tax cuts as the economy's savior — and pointing to the strong housing market as proof". So the strong housing market is a result of his tax cuts. The same housing market that would burst 3 years later. To this day, you have yet to reconcile that. The reason why is obvious; it pins the mortgage bubble on tax cuts, thus invalidating your imagined economic argument for them, and invalidating your attempt to blame other people for a mess your shit policies caused.

Yup. It was in all the papers.

And it was caused by the tax cut. Country not in a recession, Reagan cuts taxes, country enters recession. Unemployment stays steady, Reagan cut taxes, unemployment spikes.

So there's a better argument that Reagan's tax cuts caused the recession than there is an argument that they brought us out of a recession.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I disagree with your misinterpretation of the data.

Moody's said that the wealthy increased their savings after the tax cuts. Savings don't grow the economy. That's why Bush's economy was shit until the mortgage bubble (which was also caused by the tax cuts, according to Bush himself). What you've failed to do is provide any evidence that supports your claims that isn't "correlation-is-causation". And you never will.

I've always said it. So your claim about what I said was wrong. Or were you lying?

Sophistry and captiousness for the world to see.

Income tax cuts from very high levels probably pay for themselves.

PROBABLY? So you don't know. Why not just say that? Why posture? So it's just a guess on your part, informed by nothing than your ego. And no, as we linked before, the wealthy do not increase their spending to account for the tax cuts. They increased their savings, which didn't produce revenues...which is why we went from a surplus in 2001 to a record deficit by 2003. We also saw the same thing happen in Kansas. That's why KS' GDP growth post-tax cuts was worse than the rest of the country.

Capital gains tax cuts usually pay for themselves.
Many other tax cuts don't pay for themselves.

Capital Gains tax cuts don't pay for themselves, as we saw in the dotcom bubble burst.

Right back at ya, Sparky.

Wrong. See, the difference between you and me is that I don't rely on what I mistakenly think is "conventional wisdom" to carry my argument. The entire premise of your argument hinges on correlation-is-causation, and you know it. That's why you posted that shit.

You were just handed a link that says the wealthy increased their savings, not their spending, after the Bush Tax Cuts.
And?

AND that means tax cuts for the rich didn't create growth or pay for themselves, despite you theorizing it does in this very post.

How does the savings rate in China compare to the US savings rate?

Increasing the rate of savings will directly reduce economic growth because you're pulling money out of the consumer economy. I'm wondering why you feel the need to do non-sequitur like this? What is it you're hoping to prove?

Bush said, "I want to accelerate my tax cuts to inflate a housing bubble"?

According to Fox News, he was "touting his tax cuts as the economy's savior — and pointing to the strong housing market as proof". So the strong housing market is a result of his tax cuts. The same housing market that would burst 3 years later. To this day, you have yet to reconcile that. The reason why is obvious; it pins the mortgage bubble on tax cuts, thus invalidating your imagined economic argument for them, and invalidating your attempt to blame other people for a mess your shit policies caused.

Yup. It was in all the papers.

And it was caused by the tax cut. Country not in a recession, Reagan cuts taxes, country enters recession. Unemployment stays steady, Reagan cut taxes, unemployment spikes.

So there's a better argument that Reagan's tax cuts caused the recession than there is an argument that they brought us out of a recession.

PROBABLY? So you don't know.

If tax rates were 99%, would a cut to 90% pay for itself?
I think so.
If rates were 90%, would a cut to 70% pay for itself?
I think so.
If rates were 70%, would a cut to 50% pay for itself?
I think so.
Below 50%, I'm less sure. So what?

If you know they don't, post your evidence.

Capital Gains tax cuts don't pay for themselves,

You'd have to look at capital gains revenues before and after a cut in rates.
You'd have to look at capital gains revenues before and after a hike in rates.
You'd notice your error.

as we saw in the dotcom bubble burst.

Revenues didn't increase after the cap gains rate was cut? Prove it.

AND that means tax cuts for the rich didn't create growth

Who claimed the only source of growth comes from a steady or shrinking savings rate of the rich?

or pay for themselves,

I never claimed the Bush tax cuts would, or did, pay for themselves.

Increasing the rate of savings will directly reduce economic growth because you're pulling money out of the consumer economy.

So that's why Chinese GDP growth is lower than ours?
Because their savings rate is much, much higher than our savings rate?

According to Fox News, he was "touting his tax cuts as the economy's savior — and pointing to the strong housing market as proof". So the strong housing market is a result of his tax cuts.

Thanks!
For so quickly admitting your lie.

And it was caused by the tax cut. Country not in a recession, Reagan cuts taxes, country enters recession.

Let's discuss your moronic claim.

1)Reagan cuts taxes.
2)People have more money in their pockets
3)???
4)???
5)Therefore a recession happens

Please fill in #3 and #4.
Use #3a), #3b) etc., if you need more than 2 extra steps to back up your feeling.

 

[hadit]

Didn't have to. Didn't care about it, because that's not how you win.

Well, the problem is that Trump's not on record saying this until after he lost the popular vote. It's a small distinction, but one that cuts to the bone of credibility.

Why should he say anything about it before hand? No one knew the situation would resolve the way it did. Heck, everyone paying any attention at all thought he would lose big time, so there was no reason to talk about it.

You do remember Hillary being upset that Trump wouldn't swear to automatically accept the results of the election. I think she said something about it 'threatening democracy' or some such. Then, when she grabbed the dirty end of the stick, it suddenly wasn't such a bad thing to not accept her defeat and the knowledge that,a based a candidate as he was, she was worse.

IOW, Monday morning quarterbacking doesn't change the score of the game.

 

[The Derp]

Why should he say anything about it before hand? No one knew the situation would resolve the way it did. Heck, everyone paying any attention at all thought he would lose big time, so there was no reason to talk about it.

So you're trying to ascribe your rationale to Trump, after the fact.

You do remember Hillary being upset that Trump wouldn't swear to automatically accept the results of the election. I think she said something about it 'threatening democracy' or some such. Then, when she grabbed the dirty end of the stick, it suddenly wasn't such a bad thing to not accept her defeat and the knowledge that,a based a candidate as he was, she was worse.IOW, Monday morning quarterbacking doesn't change the score of the game.

Exactly, and Trump claiming he would have won the popular vote if he campaigned that way is an example of retroactive revisionism.

 

[The Derp]

If tax rates were 99%, would a cut to 90% pay for itself?
I think so.
If rates were 90%, would a cut to 70% pay for itself?
I think so.
If rates were 70%, would a cut to 50% pay for itself?
I think so.
Below 50%, I'm less sure. So what?.

You think this, but offer no justification or support of it. Instead, you substitute your "conventional wisdom" for fact and hope no one notices. We had a top tax rate of 90% and the economy did fine.

You'd have to look at capital gains revenues before and after a cut in rates.
You'd have to look at capital gains revenues before and after a hike in rates.
You'd notice your error.

Yeah, and you'd have to look at the entire picture, not just the cherry-picked years that make your argument look better than it actually was, which is a habit of yours. Cutting the capital gains tax rate created volatility in the market, and that volatility ended up causing a recession. So why would cutting the capital gains tax rate today not result in the same thing?

Revenues didn't increase after the cap gains rate was cut? Prove it.

You can't prove that the increase in revenues had anything to do with the capital gains tax cut, which caused volatility in the market, which caused a bubble burst, which caused a recession.

Who claimed the only source of growth comes from a steady or shrinking savings rate of the rich?

No one claimed that. But your claim is that cutting their taxes increases growth and there's no evidence that proves that. In fact, the increase in the savings rate proves the opposite; that cutting taxes for the wealthy results in less economic growth because the savings rate increased. Increasing a savings rate doesn't translate into increased economic activity. In fact, it translates to decreased economic activity because, as the link I provided to you said, the savings rate shot up. And if the savings rate shoots up, that means the spending rate declines. The two are intrinsically linked.

I never claimed the Bush tax cuts would, or did, pay for themselves.

But here you are, claiming that tax cuts for the rich pay for themselves while offering no support of that argument at all.

So that's why Chinese GDP growth is lower than ours?
Because their savings rate is much, much higher than our savings rate?

China's growth rate is due to the economic stimulus the nation is currently employing.

Thanks!
For so quickly admitting your lie.

I didn't lie about anything. You're the one lying, or just not understanding what you're saying. Bush said his tax cuts caused the growth in the housing market. The housing market that would eventually pop three years later. Hence, Bush's tax cuts were responsible for the housing market bubble popping.

Let's discuss your moronic claim.
1)Reagan cuts taxes.
2)People have more money in their pockets
3)???
4)???
5)Therefore a recession happens

People didn't have more money in their pockets because personal debt skyrocketed during Reagan. The tax cut resulted in a decline in economic activity, meaning the stimulative effects of the tax cuts didn't happen. And since that stimulus didn't happen, then the tax cuts didn't pay for themselves and didn't increase consumer spending at all. BTW - Reagan would hike taxes on the middle class one year later....then the recession ended.