Even Wall Street thinks this tax bill is a loser

[hadit]

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.

So? It's still a self soothing exercise for Hillary partisans who cannot accept the reality that she was defeated by someone they cannot accept as being competent to tie his own shoes, much less able to prevent her from ascending to her birthright throne.

 

[The Derp]

So? It's still a self soothing exercise for Hillary partisans who cannot accept the reality that she was defeated by someone they cannot accept as being competent to tie his own shoes, much less able to prevent her from ascending to her birthright throne.

The reality is that Donald Trump lost the popular vote.

 

[hadit]

So? It's still a self soothing exercise for Hillary partisans who cannot accept the reality that she was defeated by someone they cannot accept as being competent to tie his own shoes, much less able to prevent her from ascending to her birthright throne.

The reality is that Donald Trump lost the popular vote.

Hold on to that. I hear it helps when the voices get too loud. In the mean time, Hillary still can't get into the White House without a visitor pass.

 

[The Derp]

Hold on to that. I hear it helps when the voices get too loud. In the mean time, Hillary still can't get into the White House without a visitor pass.

For someone supposedly irrelevant, you all sure seem to talk about Clinton an awful lot. It's like you're obsessed with her.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

You can't prove that the increase in revenues had anything to do with the capital gains tax cut

Previous cuts in capital gains rates gave the government higher revenues.
Previous hikes in capital gains rates gave the government lower revenues.

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

​

No one claimed that.​

I accept your surrender.
​

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.​

Thanks for explaining why China has such a high growth rate.....
their high savings rate is decreasing economic activity. What?

People didn't have more money in their pockets because personal debt skyrocketed during Reagan.

People had more money in their pockets because the government took less money out of their pockets. Moron.
​

The tax cut resulted in a decline in economic activity, ​

Fucking moron.
​

 

[hadit]

Hold on to that. I hear it helps when the voices get too loud. In the mean time, Hillary still can't get into the White House without a visitor pass.

For someone supposedly irrelevant, you all sure seem to talk about Clinton an awful lot. It's like you're obsessed with her.

You guys keep yammering about her winning the Miss Congeniality award. Then we point out how meaningless that is and WE are obsessed?

 

[The Derp]

Previous cuts in capital gains rates gave the government higher revenues.Previous hikes in capital gains rates gave the government lower revenues.

You cannot prove that. You haven't been able to and you never will. You think your theory represents proof, but it doesn't. Cutting the capital gains taxes creates volatility in the marketplace which results in a market collapse. We know because we lived through it 17 years ago.

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

So this is you redefining the parameters. Your argument was that cutting taxes for the wealthy would translate to increased economic activity by way of trickle down so that the tax cut pays for itself. That's not true, but you're holding onto that point as if it is even though there is no data to support it, and the data we do have shows the wealthy increased savings, which resulted in less spending.

Thanks for explaining why China has such a high growth rate.....

their high savings rate is decreasing economic activity. What?​

China is currently employing an economic stimulus, did you know that? I doubt it because you don't know anything. That's why they have growth...government spending. But it should be noted that their growth is slowing as the stimulus winds down.

eople had more money in their pockets because the government took less money out of their pockets. Moron.

Nope. Untrue. Personal savings declined post-tax cut and household debt increased. That meant consumers had less money in their pockets because they went into greater debt. More money in the pockets of consumers would have meant the household debt amounts should have declined. But the opposite happened. Consumers went into debt because they didn't get more money in their pockets.

The tax cut resulted in a decline in economic activity,
View attachment 164740
Fucking moron.

So what happened in 1982? Oh right, Reagan raised taxes. And look at that...he raised taxes in 1982, they went into effect in 1983, and immediately, the economy started growing again.

 

[The Derp]

You guys keep yammering about her winning the Miss Congeniality award. Then we point out how meaningless that is and WE are obsessed?

No, you're building a straw man argument.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Previous cuts in capital gains rates gave the government higher revenues.Previous hikes in capital gains rates gave the government lower revenues.

You cannot prove that. You haven't been able to and you never will. You think your theory represents proof, but it doesn't. Cutting the capital gains taxes creates volatility in the marketplace which results in a market collapse. We know because we lived through it 17 years ago.

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

So this is you redefining the parameters. Your argument was that cutting taxes for the wealthy would translate to increased economic activity by way of trickle down so that the tax cut pays for itself. That's not true, but you're holding onto that point as if it is even though there is no data to support it, and the data we do have shows the wealthy increased savings, which resulted in less spending.

Thanks for explaining why China has such a high growth rate.....

their high savings rate is decreasing economic activity. What?​

China is currently employing an economic stimulus, did you know that? I doubt it because you don't know anything. That's why they have growth...government spending. But it should be noted that their growth is slowing as the stimulus winds down.

People had more money in their pockets because the government took less money out of their pockets. Moron.

Nope. Untrue. Personal savings declined post-tax cut and household debt increased. That meant consumers had less money in their pockets because they went into greater debt. More money in the pockets of consumers would have meant the household debt amounts should have declined. But the opposite happened. Consumers went into debt because they didn't get more money in their pockets.

The tax cut resulted in a decline in economic activity,
View attachment 164740
Fucking moron.

So what happened in 1982? Oh right, Reagan raised taxes. And look at that...he raised taxes in 1982, they went into effect in 1983, and immediately, the economy started growing again.

Previous cuts in capital gains rates gave the government higher revenues. Previous hikes in capital gains rates gave the government lower revenues.

You cannot prove that.

I can.

So this is you redefining the parameters. Your argument was that cutting taxes for the wealthy would translate to increased economic activity by way of trickle down

I didn't use any claim of "trickle down", whatever that is.

China is currently employing an economic stimulus, did you know that? I doubt it because you don't know anything. That's why they have growth...government spending.

How does their government spending compare to ours?

Chart: Just how much does China save vs rest of the world?

People had more money in their pockets because the government took less money out of their pockets. Moron.


​

Nope. Untrue. Personal savings declined post-tax cut and household debt increased. ​

​

1)Reagan cut taxes.​

2)Government has less money​

3)People have more money in their pocket​

4)???​

5)???​

​

You'll have to fill in 4) and 5), because after the first 3 steps, people had more money in their pockets.​

​

 

[The Derp]

I can.

Yet you don't. Because it's hypothetical.

I didn't use any claim of "trickle down", whatever that is.

You said that the wealthy would generate economic activity from their tax cut to pay for the tax cut. That is your position. How do the wealthy do that if not by trickling down?

How does their government spending compare to ours?

Theirs is direct stimulus spending. Which they've been doing. So you didn't even bother to address that point. China's savings rate is higher than ours, and you pondered how that could fit with their high growth rate (indicative of spending). And I gave you the answer as to how: government stimulus.

That's how China's economy grows today...stimulus spending by the government as personal savings increase. The Chinese government recognizes that a high savings rate sucks up demand in the economy, so to fill that demand deficit, the government does a stimulus. As the stimulus spending winds down, as it has this year, China's economy predictably slows down too. It was in the link I gave you that you obviously didn't read because you're intellectually lazy af.

Nope. Untrue. Personal savings declined post-tax cut and household debt increased.

1)Reagan cut taxes.
2)Government has less money
3)People have more money in their pocket
4)???
5)???​

Wow dude...you just admitted here that tax cuts create deficits by reducing the amount of money the government has. This is in direct contradiction to what you've been saying in nearly every thread on this topic that tax cuts don't cause deficits. Apparently, they do...you just didn't realize you admitted it.
​

1) Reagan cut taxes, which resulted in...
2) ...government has less money <---- SO YOU'RE ADMITTING HERE THAT TAX CUTS CREATE DEFICITS!!!! LOL!!!!
3) Government cuts spending on programs like SNAP, Medicaid, Pell Grants & FAFSA, Low-Income Energy Assistance, Section 8 housing, and the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA).
4) Government spending cuts increase out-of-pocket expenses; cutting Pell Grants and FAFSA means students have to pay higher tuition and borrow at higher rates; cutting Medicaid means patients have to pay higher co-pays and coinsurance and prescription drug costs; cutting low-income energy assistance means consumers have to pay higher energy costs. So that means...
5) ...consumers go into debt to pay for health care, college, job training, energy, etc.

That's why household debt always skyrockets after tax cuts. Always.

​

 

[EvilCat Breath]

So? It's still a self soothing exercise for Hillary partisans who cannot accept the reality that she was defeated by someone they cannot accept as being competent to tie his own shoes, much less able to prevent her from ascending to her birthright throne.

The reality is that Donald Trump lost the popular vote.

The reality is, Donald Trump is president. That's the reality.

 

[The Derp]

The reality is, Donald Trump is president. That's the reality.

I don't deny this, and he had plenty of help from his Russian friends to get there. Whether he lasts four years remains to be seen.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I can.

Yet you don't. Because it's hypothetical.

I didn't use any claim of "trickle down", whatever that is.

You said that the wealthy would generate economic activity from their tax cut to pay for the tax cut. That is your position. How do the wealthy do that if not by trickling down?

How does their government spending compare to ours?

Theirs is direct stimulus spending. Which they've been doing. So you didn't even bother to address that point. China's savings rate is higher than ours, and you pondered how that could fit with their high growth rate (indicative of spending). And I gave you the answer as to how: government stimulus.

That's how China's economy grows today...stimulus spending by the government as personal savings increase. The Chinese government recognizes that a high savings rate sucks up demand in the economy, so to fill that demand deficit, the government does a stimulus. As the stimulus spending winds down, as it has this year, China's economy predictably slows down too. It was in the link I gave you that you obviously didn't read because you're intellectually lazy af.

Nope. Untrue. Personal savings declined post-tax cut and household debt increased.

1)Reagan cut taxes.
2)Government has less money
3)People have more money in their pocket
4)???
5)???​

Wow dude...you just admitted here that tax cuts create deficits by reducing the amount of money the government has. This is in direct contradiction to what you've been saying in nearly every thread on this topic that tax cuts don't cause deficits. Apparently, they do...you just didn't realize you admitted it.
​

1) Reagan cut taxes, which resulted in...
2) ...government has less money <---- SO YOU'RE ADMITTING HERE THAT TAX CUTS CREATE DEFICITS!!!! LOL!!!!
3) Government cuts spending on programs like SNAP, Medicaid, Pell Grants & FAFSA, Low-Income Energy Assistance, Section 8 housing, and the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA).
4) Government spending cuts increase out-of-pocket expenses; cutting Pell Grants and FAFSA means students have to pay higher tuition and borrow at higher rates; cutting Medicaid means patients have to pay higher co-pays and coinsurance and prescription drug costs; cutting low-income energy assistance means consumers have to pay higher energy costs. So that means...
5) ...consumers go into debt to pay for health care, college, job training, energy, etc.

That's why household debt always skyrockets after tax cuts. Always.

​

I can.

Yet you don't. Because it's hypothetical.

Historical changes in the capital gains tax rate are hypothetical?
What, are you 12? Or stoned?

You said that the wealthy would generate economic activity from their tax cut to pay for the tax cut.

Businesses will generate additional economic activity.
I didn't say anything about the rich. I didn't say anything about paying for a tax cut.

How do the wealthy do that if not by trickling down?

What's "trickling down"?

Theirs is direct stimulus spending. Which they've been doing

How does it compare as a percentage of GDP?

Wow dude...you just admitted here that tax cuts create deficits by reducing the amount of money the government has.

Wow dude...you think that tax cuts reduce the amount of money the people have.

3) Government cuts spending on programs like SNAP, Medicaid, Pell Grants & FAFSA, Low-Income Energy Assistance, Section 8 housing, and the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA).

After the Reagan tax cuts, how much did the government reduce spending on those things?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The reality is, Donald Trump is president. That's the reality.

I don't deny this, and he had plenty of help from his Russian friends to get there. Whether he lasts four years remains to be seen.

Four years! The man is looking at a landslide reelection!

 

[The Derp]

Historical changes in the capital gains tax rate are hypothetical?

You didn't say "rate", you said "revenue". So you're doing that thing again where you exercise sophistry to cover for the massive holes in your shit argument, unable to remember what you say from post to post.

Businesses will generate additional economic activity.

How so? Businesses can reinvest now, pre-tax. So what difference does the corporate income tax rate make when it comes to a business reinvesting? If anything, a higher corporate tax rate would force the business to invest more to avoid the tax liability. Unfortunately, thanks to Reagan, buybacks and dividends now count as "reinvestment", and that's the "reinvestment" I suspect you're alluding to. Businesses don't expand just because. There has to be demand to justify the expansion. Cutting corporate income taxes doesn't increase that demand. Neither does cutting tax rates for the rich.

I didn't say anything about the rich. I didn't say anything about paying for a tax cut.

That's what you've been saying this entire time...that cutting taxes for the rich and corporations will magically translate into growth, despite a lack of demand to meet. That's not economics, that's zealotry.

What's "trickling down"?

Nothing trickles down. That's the point. Despite you promising it does when you claim those cuts "increase economic activity". That's just your way of saying "trickle down" without saying those exact words. We know your playbook.

How does it compare as a percentage of GDP?

It's a pretty significant part. In fact, Chinese government stimulus spending is what kept China's economy going this whole time.

Wow dude...you think that tax cuts reduce the amount of money the people have.

It does, and we know this because after every tax cut, personal savings rate drops and household debt increases. So you cut taxes, which forces cuts to spending, which forces people to pay more out of pocket for essential services.

The best example of this is what happened in Kansas with the Kansas State University Board of Regents...KS cut taxes, which created deficits, which had to be closed because of KS' BBA. So to close those deficits, KS cut spending on education. Those cuts forced the KS State Board of Regents to raise tuition, which resulted in students and families having to borrow more and spend more out of pocket.

KS also increased co-pays, co-insurance, and drug costs for Medicaid patients (of which there are many in KS because it's a piss-poor state of underachievers and losers) because state spending on Medicaid was cut...to pay for tax cuts that didn't pay for themselves as promised.

So that's how tax cuts end up costing taxpayers more in the end.

After the Reagan tax cuts, how much did the government reduce spending on those things?

$44B, which was a 5.7% cut to the overall budget. Over half of the $44 billion budget reduction came from two areas: income security; and education, training, employment, and social services.

Predictably, household debt increased and personal savings decreased. Why? Because those people had to go into debt to get an education or health care or energy or housing.

 

[The Derp]

The reality is, Donald Trump is president. That's the reality.

I don't deny this, and he had plenty of help from his Russian friends to get there. Whether he lasts four years remains to be seen.

Four years! The man is looking at a landslide reelection!

What if you're wrong?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The reality is, Donald Trump is president. That's the reality.

I don't deny this, and he had plenty of help from his Russian friends to get there. Whether he lasts four years remains to be seen.

Four years! The man is looking at a landslide reelection!

What if you're wrong?

What if you're wrong?

After all, you have been predicting Trump's impeachment since before he was sworn in. How did that work out for you?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Historical changes in the capital gains tax rate are hypothetical?

You didn't say "rate", you said "revenue". So you're doing that thing again where you exercise sophistry to cover for the massive holes in your shit argument, unable to remember what you say from post to post.

Businesses will generate additional economic activity.

How so? Businesses can reinvest now, pre-tax. So what difference does the corporate income tax rate make when it comes to a business reinvesting? If anything, a higher corporate tax rate would force the business to invest more to avoid the tax liability. Unfortunately, thanks to Reagan, buybacks and dividends now count as "reinvestment", and that's the "reinvestment" I suspect you're alluding to. Businesses don't expand just because. There has to be demand to justify the expansion. Cutting corporate income taxes doesn't increase that demand. Neither does cutting tax rates for the rich.

I didn't say anything about the rich. I didn't say anything about paying for a tax cut.

That's what you've been saying this entire time...that cutting taxes for the rich and corporations will magically translate into growth, despite a lack of demand to meet. That's not economics, that's zealotry.

What's "trickling down"?

Nothing trickles down. That's the point. Despite you promising it does when you claim those cuts "increase economic activity". That's just your way of saying "trickle down" without saying those exact words. We know your playbook.

How does it compare as a percentage of GDP?

It's a pretty significant part. In fact, Chinese government stimulus spending is what kept China's economy going this whole time.

Wow dude...you think that tax cuts reduce the amount of money the people have.

It does, and we know this because after every tax cut, personal savings rate drops and household debt increases. So you cut taxes, which forces cuts to spending, which forces people to pay more out of pocket for essential services.

The best example of this is what happened in Kansas with the Kansas State University Board of Regents...KS cut taxes, which created deficits, which had to be closed because of KS' BBA. So to close those deficits, KS cut spending on education. Those cuts forced the KS State Board of Regents to raise tuition, which resulted in students and families having to borrow more and spend more out of pocket.

KS also increased co-pays, co-insurance, and drug costs for Medicaid patients (of which there are many in KS because it's a piss-poor state of underachievers and losers) because state spending on Medicaid was cut...to pay for tax cuts that didn't pay for themselves as promised.

So that's how tax cuts end up costing taxpayers more in the end.

After the Reagan tax cuts, how much did the government reduce spending on those things?

$44B, which was a 5.7% cut to the overall budget. Over half of the $44 billion budget reduction came from two areas: income security; and education, training, employment, and social services.

Predictably, household debt increased and personal savings decreased. Why? Because those people had to go into debt to get an education or health care or energy or housing.

Historical changes in the capital gains tax rate are hypothetical?
​

You didn't say "rate", you said "revenue".​

​

Ummmmm.......​

You can't prove that the increase in revenues had anything to do with the capital gains tax cut

Previous cuts in capital gains rates gave the government higher revenues.
Previous hikes in capital gains rates gave the government lower revenues.

Even Wall Street thinks this tax bill is a loser

Fucking moron.

 

[hadit]

You guys keep yammering about her winning the Miss Congeniality award. Then we point out how meaningless that is and WE are obsessed?

No, you're building a straw man argument.

You're proudly proclaiming Hillary's consolation prize in a thread on a completely different subject and I'm building a straw man?

 

[hadit]

The reality is, Donald Trump is president. That's the reality.

I don't deny this, and he had plenty of help from his Russian friends to get there. Whether he lasts four years remains to be seen.

You say that like you really believe it.