Jeb Bush’s tax plan shows Republicans can’t learn from economic history

[S.J.]

S.J. is correct, we won't know the Republican nominee until much later in the game and it will not be any of the current class of wannabe's. The one thing we know for sure is that whoever it is will endorse tax cuts for the wealthy and for no other reason than to create and build deficits so that in the end they can all scream in unison that the only way to balance the budget is to scrap Social Security.

Republicans hate America so much they don't care what kind of damage they inflict getting their way. They used to be good at better ideas, now all they care about is themselves and their own fat wallets.

Stop twisting what I said. Can't you make a point without misrepresenting somebody else's statements because you can't articulate your own position (if you even HAVE one)?

 

[The Rabbi]

Both the reagan tax cuts and the Bush cuts resulted in high income people sending MORE money to the Treasury, not less. Even Obama aknowledges this is the case.

Disregarding for the moment your assertion as approaching some basis in truth, If more money were coming into the treasury under the Reagan and Bush tax cuts and fiscal policies, why then did the Public Debt increased to 286.4% of it initial value during Reagan's eight (8) budget years and by 205.1% during Bush's eight (8) budget years. If a bunch more was coming into the public purse as you claim, but the Public Debt rose by 286% and 205% of their initial values under Reagan and Bush respectively, then they were HUGE spenders, spending like there was no tomorrow, OR your claim is false OR BOTH!

I'm going with both!!!!

Now which excuse will you use to dodge a direct response to the absolute assertion you made!

In Reagan's case the Congress was dominated by Democrats, who increased spending far faster than revenue increased. In Bush's case Congress was initially dominated by Republicans who thought they could re-elected by acting like Democrats, and Bush failed to veto any of these spending bills.
But you dont have to take my word for the increase in revenue. There are websites and the like where you could easily track government revenue over time following those tax cuts.
But as I said, even Obama understands that lowering some taxes produces more revenue. If he gets it, why dont you?

Reagan had the veto power, so why didn't the wimp use it if you're assertion that the Democrats increased the budget over and over? So Bush failed to use his veto power too, and the Democrats held a gun to Bush's head? That dog don't hunt, Bubba!

Here comes the Bullshit flag for 15 yards! What ever the hell you do don't mention Bush's either 7 or so supplemental budgets that were all OFF BUDGET adding nearly $2 trillion to the debt. Reagan cut taxes a couple of times and then turned around and hiked taxes multiple times.

Yet, increasing the cash flow into the Treasury is half of the picture. The other half of the story is the amount leaving the Treasury to pay the bills these spendthrift administrations, regardless of stripe, went through on "defense" buildups and WAR!

Your deflection to avoid acknowledging your premise was flawed is duly noted. Highlight that white mark at the bottom of my initial post to you (#12). You did just what I predicted!

We are discussing revenue, not deficits. Therefore you are deflecting.
Reagan was a wimp? You're hilarious.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Both the reagan tax cuts and the Bush cuts resulted in high income people sending MORE money to the Treasury, not less. Even Obama aknowledges this is the case.

Disregarding for the moment your assertion as approaching some basis in truth, If more money were coming into the treasury under the Reagan and Bush tax cuts and fiscal policies, why then did the Public Debt increased to 286.4% of it initial value during Reagan's eight (8) budget years and by 205.1% during Bush's eight (8) budget years. If a bunch more was coming into the public purse as you claim, but the Public Debt rose by 286% and 205% of their initial values under Reagan and Bush respectively, then they were HUGE spenders, spending like there was no tomorrow, OR your claim is false OR BOTH!

I'm going with both!!!!

Now which excuse will you use to dodge a direct response to the absolute assertion you made!

In Reagan's case the Congress was dominated by Democrats, who increased spending far faster than revenue increased. In Bush's case Congress was initially dominated by Republicans who thought they could re-elected by acting like Democrats, and Bush failed to veto any of these spending bills.
But you dont have to take my word for the increase in revenue. There are websites and the like where you could easily track government revenue over time following those tax cuts.
But as I said, even Obama understands that lowering some taxes produces more revenue. If he gets it, why dont you?

Reagan had the veto power, so why didn't the wimp use it if you're assertion that the Democrats increased the budget over and over? So Bush failed to use his veto power too, and the Democrats held a gun to Bush's head? That dog don't hunt, Bubba!

Here comes the Bullshit flag for 15 yards! What ever the hell you do don't mention Bush's either 7 or so supplemental budgets that were all OFF BUDGET adding nearly $2 trillion to the debt. Reagan cut taxes a couple of times and then turned around and hiked taxes multiple times.

Yet, increasing the cash flow into the Treasury is half of the picture. The other half of the story is the amount leaving the Treasury to pay the bills these spendthrift administrations, regardless of stripe, went through on "defense" buildups and WAR!

Your deflection to avoid acknowledging your premise was flawed is duly noted. Highlight that white mark at the bottom of my initial post to you (#12). You did just what I predicted!

Reagan was hamstrung by: Lying Democrat Congress and Budget Impoundment and Control Act of 1974

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wrong. It is a demonstrable fact of history that every major tax cut has been followed by robust economic growth and by increased federal revenue:

The Facts About Tax Cuts, Revenue, and Growth

And, FYI, the largest rate cuts in the 2003 tax cuts did NOT go to the rich; they went largely to the lower income groups. Just compare the tax tables for 2003 to those of, say, 2007. Look who got the biggest rate cuts.

The 2003 tax bill left the two lowest tax bracket rates the same, and cut the top three.

 

[bedowin62]

people whose own states and cities totter on the verge of insolvency should avoid even speaking on economic policy matters, and learning from history

For Carbintard; i have to admit, loon, New York State DID learn from history, dont they have a TEN-YEAR TAX BREAK for corporations moving to or expanding in New York State?????

 

[bedowin62]

HOW VERY REPUBLICAN-LIKE!!!

snicker




Taxes & Incentives - Empire State Development - New York ...
esd.ny.gov/.../Taxes_Incentives.h...

• Cached
• Similar

Empire State Development Corporation
Loading...
New York State now has one of the lowest corporate income tax rates in the ... expansion and improvement of commercial property, a 10-year property tax

 

[IsaacNewton]

Why not take con tax policy to its logical conclusion. Cut the tax percent for the top 10% to zero. They pay no tax.

By con thinking the economy would be the best it has ever been and would grow at such a rate that everyone would become wealthy and then all would be in the zero percentile bracket.

Its easy to understand how the Waltons think this a good idea.

How exactly working class and poor Republicans buy into this steaming pile of crap is one of the mysteries of the human mind. Con-media is able to convince working class and poor conservatives of absolutely ANYTHING.

 

[bedowin62]

Why not take con tax policy to its logical conclusion. Cut the tax percent for the top 10% to zero. They pay no tax.

By con thinking the economy would be the best it has ever been and would grow at such a rate that everyone would become wealthy and then all would be in the zero percentile bracket.

Its easy to understand how the Waltons think this a good idea.

How exactly working class and poor Republicans buy into this steaming pile of crap is one of the mysteries of the human mind. Con-media is able to convince working class and poor conservatives of absolutely ANYTHING.

people who cannot bring themselves to admit under Progressive governance the very richest got richer and the poorest got poorer AT A FASTER PACE will always tend to be surprised at things; like what others are convinced of.
Maybe if you spent less time finger-pointing and more time looking in a mirror things might be a bit more focused for you????

 

[bedowin62]

people whose leaders have actually said "welfare, unemployment and food stamps save or create jobs" should avoid commenting in bewilderment on these maters. Let's take THAT to its logical end; if only everybody didnt have a job and was on some form of government program; it would eliminate the need for those programs because they "save or create jobs"??????

 

[bedowin62]

Says Nancy Pelosi: 'The More Americans On ...
https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/.../says-nancy-pelosi-the-more-a...

• Cached

Oct 8, 2010 - On the unemployment situation and food stamps, Nancy Pelosi said this: “It ... Apparently, according to the leading Democrat in Congress, if every ... Which is to say, Obama, Pelosi and Reid should destroy even MORE jobs so

 

[bedowin62]

Nancy Pelosi says food stamps and unemployment ...
www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/fraud/us.../news.php?q...

• Cached

Oct 8, 2010 - Nancy Pelosi rejoicing in her twisted belief that food stamps grow ... to make a contrast between Democrats who promote food stamps as their ... for people to save, invest and create jobs because they will be allowed to keep ... have a stimulating effect on the economy, because no one is going to say, "Yes!

 

[IsaacNewton]

Why not take con tax policy to its logical conclusion. Cut the tax percent for the top 10% to zero. They pay no tax.

By con thinking the economy would be the best it has ever been and would grow at such a rate that everyone would become wealthy and then all would be in the zero percentile bracket.

Its easy to understand how the Waltons think this a good idea.

How exactly working class and poor Republicans buy into this steaming pile of crap is one of the mysteries of the human mind. Con-media is able to convince working class and poor conservatives of absolutely ANYTHING.

people who cannot bring themselves to admit under Progressive governance the very richest got richer and the poorest got poorer AT A FASTER PACE will always tend to be surprised at things; like what others are convinced of.
Maybe if you spent less time finger-pointing and more time looking in a mirror things might be a bit more focused for you????

Wow you have a high propensity for ignoring what other people say.

I return your view of the world back to you.

 

[bedowin62]

Why not take con tax policy to its logical conclusion. Cut the tax percent for the top 10% to zero. They pay no tax.

By con thinking the economy would be the best it has ever been and would grow at such a rate that everyone would become wealthy and then all would be in the zero percentile bracket.

Its easy to understand how the Waltons think this a good idea.

How exactly working class and poor Republicans buy into this steaming pile of crap is one of the mysteries of the human mind. Con-media is able to convince working class and poor conservatives of absolutely ANYTHING.

people who cannot bring themselves to admit under Progressive governance the very richest got richer and the poorest got poorer AT A FASTER PACE will always tend to be surprised at things; like what others are convinced of.
Maybe if you spent less time finger-pointing and more time looking in a mirror things might be a bit more focused for you????

Wow you have a high propensity for ignoring what other people say.

I return your view of the world back to you.

what part of what you said did i ignore Einstein?

 

[The Rabbi]

Why not take con tax policy to its logical conclusion. Cut the tax percent for the top 10% to zero. They pay no tax.

By con thinking the economy would be the best it has ever been and would grow at such a rate that everyone would become wealthy and then all would be in the zero percentile bracket.

Its easy to understand how the Waltons think this a good idea.

How exactly working class and poor Republicans buy into this steaming pile of crap is one of the mysteries of the human mind. Con-media is able to convince working class and poor conservatives of absolutely ANYTHING.

By the same token, enact the libs' wet dream. Raise taxes on the top earners to 100%. And institute a min wage of $500/hr and watch the country soar.
Wow, ad absurdum fallacies are so much fun!

 

[The Rabbi]

Why not take con tax policy to its logical conclusion. Cut the tax percent for the top 10% to zero. They pay no tax.

By con thinking the economy would be the best it has ever been and would grow at such a rate that everyone would become wealthy and then all would be in the zero percentile bracket.

Its easy to understand how the Waltons think this a good idea.

How exactly working class and poor Republicans buy into this steaming pile of crap is one of the mysteries of the human mind. Con-media is able to convince working class and poor conservatives of absolutely ANYTHING.

people who cannot bring themselves to admit under Progressive governance the very richest got richer and the poorest got poorer AT A FASTER PACE will always tend to be surprised at things; like what others are convinced of.
Maybe if you spent less time finger-pointing and more time looking in a mirror things might be a bit more focused for you????

Wow you have a high propensity for ignoring what other people say.

I return your view of the world back to you.

He mentioned facts. It is simply fact that the upper income groups have seen large rises in their income under Obama while lower income groups have had even lower income under Obama.
What about that statement do you disagree with or think is wrong?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Both the reagan tax cuts and the Bush cuts resulted in high income people sending MORE money to the Treasury, not less. Even Obama aknowledges this is the case.

Disregarding for the moment your assertion as approaching some basis in truth, If more money were coming into the treasury under the Reagan and Bush tax cuts and fiscal policies, why then did the Public Debt increased to 286.4% of it initial value during Reagan's eight (8) budget years and by 205.1% during Bush's eight (8) budget years. If a bunch more was coming into the public purse as you claim, but the Public Debt rose by 286% and 205% of their initial values under Reagan and Bush respectively, then they were HUGE spenders, spending like there was no tomorrow, OR your claim is false OR BOTH!

I'm going with both!!!!

Now which excuse will you use to dodge a direct response to the absolute assertion you made!

In Reagan's case the Congress was dominated by Democrats, who increased spending far faster than revenue increased. In Bush's case Congress was initially dominated by Republicans who thought they could re-elected by acting like Democrats, and Bush failed to veto any of these spending bills.
But you dont have to take my word for the increase in revenue. There are websites and the like where you could easily track government revenue over time following those tax cuts.
But as I said, even Obama understands that lowering some taxes produces more revenue. If he gets it, why dont you?

Reagan had the veto power, so why didn't the wimp use it if you're assertion that the Democrats increased the budget over and over? So Bush failed to use his veto power too, and the Democrats held a gun to Bush's head? That dog don't hunt, Bubba!

Here comes the Bullshit flag for 15 yards! What ever the hell you do don't mention Bush's either 7 or so supplemental budgets that were all OFF BUDGET adding nearly $2 trillion to the debt. Reagan cut taxes a couple of times and then turned around and hiked taxes multiple times.

Yet, increasing the cash flow into the Treasury is half of the picture. The other half of the story is the amount leaving the Treasury to pay the bills these spendthrift administrations, regardless of stripe, went through on "defense" buildups and WAR!

Your deflection to avoid acknowledging your premise was flawed is duly noted. Highlight that white mark at the bottom of my initial post to you (#12). You did just what I predicted!

We are discussing revenue, not deficits. Therefore you are deflecting.
Reagan was a wimp? You're hilarious.

I responded to the fallacies of your posts, fool! If you don't wish to discuss the topic of your post then why even respond, unless it's to cover your errors. I predicted you would do this in my initial post to you. It's your MO!

 

[The Rabbi]

Both the reagan tax cuts and the Bush cuts resulted in high income people sending MORE money to the Treasury, not less. Even Obama aknowledges this is the case.

Disregarding for the moment your assertion as approaching some basis in truth, If more money were coming into the treasury under the Reagan and Bush tax cuts and fiscal policies, why then did the Public Debt increased to 286.4% of it initial value during Reagan's eight (8) budget years and by 205.1% during Bush's eight (8) budget years. If a bunch more was coming into the public purse as you claim, but the Public Debt rose by 286% and 205% of their initial values under Reagan and Bush respectively, then they were HUGE spenders, spending like there was no tomorrow, OR your claim is false OR BOTH!

I'm going with both!!!!

Now which excuse will you use to dodge a direct response to the absolute assertion you made!

In Reagan's case the Congress was dominated by Democrats, who increased spending far faster than revenue increased. In Bush's case Congress was initially dominated by Republicans who thought they could re-elected by acting like Democrats, and Bush failed to veto any of these spending bills.
But you dont have to take my word for the increase in revenue. There are websites and the like where you could easily track government revenue over time following those tax cuts.
But as I said, even Obama understands that lowering some taxes produces more revenue. If he gets it, why dont you?

Reagan had the veto power, so why didn't the wimp use it if you're assertion that the Democrats increased the budget over and over? So Bush failed to use his veto power too, and the Democrats held a gun to Bush's head? That dog don't hunt, Bubba!

Here comes the Bullshit flag for 15 yards! What ever the hell you do don't mention Bush's either 7 or so supplemental budgets that were all OFF BUDGET adding nearly $2 trillion to the debt. Reagan cut taxes a couple of times and then turned around and hiked taxes multiple times.

Yet, increasing the cash flow into the Treasury is half of the picture. The other half of the story is the amount leaving the Treasury to pay the bills these spendthrift administrations, regardless of stripe, went through on "defense" buildups and WAR!

Your deflection to avoid acknowledging your premise was flawed is duly noted. Highlight that white mark at the bottom of my initial post to you (#12). You did just what I predicted!

We are discussing revenue, not deficits. Therefore you are deflecting.
Reagan was a wimp? You're hilarious.

I responded to the fallacies of your posts, fool! If you don't wish to discuss the topic of your post then why even respond, unless it's to cover your errors. I predicted you would do this in my initial post to you. It's your MO!

No you arent, moron. You are attempting to conflate revenue with deficits and somehow blame Reagan. Or Bush. Or something.
My point stands: even Obama acknowledges that cutting taxes in some areas produces more revenue than less.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why not take con tax policy to its logical conclusion. Cut the tax percent for the top 10% to zero. They pay no tax.

By con thinking the economy would be the best it has ever been and would grow at such a rate that everyone would become wealthy and then all would be in the zero percentile bracket.

Its easy to understand how the Waltons think this a good idea.

How exactly working class and poor Republicans buy into this steaming pile of crap is one of the mysteries of the human mind. Con-media is able to convince working class and poor conservatives of absolutely ANYTHING.

people who cannot bring themselves to admit under Progressive governance the very richest got richer and the poorest got poorer AT A FASTER PACE will always tend to be surprised at things; like what others are convinced of.
Maybe if you spent less time finger-pointing and more time looking in a mirror things might be a bit more focused for you????

Wow you have a high propensity for ignoring what other people say.

I return your view of the world back to you.

He mentioned facts. It is simply fact that the upper income groups have seen large rises in their income under Obama while lower income groups have had even lower income under Obama.
What about that statement do you disagree with or think is wrong?

Up until last year we've been under the Bush tax plan, not the Obama tax plan.

So if you're going to blame tax policy for any of the income gap, you blame Bush's tax policy.

 

[bedowin62]

Why not take con tax policy to its logical conclusion. Cut the tax percent for the top 10% to zero. They pay no tax.

By con thinking the economy would be the best it has ever been and would grow at such a rate that everyone would become wealthy and then all would be in the zero percentile bracket.

Its easy to understand how the Waltons think this a good idea.

How exactly working class and poor Republicans buy into this steaming pile of crap is one of the mysteries of the human mind. Con-media is able to convince working class and poor conservatives of absolutely ANYTHING.

people who cannot bring themselves to admit under Progressive governance the very richest got richer and the poorest got poorer AT A FASTER PACE will always tend to be surprised at things; like what others are convinced of.
Maybe if you spent less time finger-pointing and more time looking in a mirror things might be a bit more focused for you????

Wow you have a high propensity for ignoring what other people say.

I return your view of the world back to you.

He mentioned facts. It is simply fact that the upper income groups have seen large rises in their income under Obama while lower income groups have had even lower income under Obama.
What about that statement do you disagree with or think is wrong?

Up until last year we've been under the Bush tax plan, not the Obama tax plan.

So if you're going to blame tax policy for any of the income gap, you blame Bush's tax policy.

what are you talking about leftard? the tax BUSH plan that obama made 98% of PERMANENT???

 

[The Rabbi]

Why not take con tax policy to its logical conclusion. Cut the tax percent for the top 10% to zero. They pay no tax.

By con thinking the economy would be the best it has ever been and would grow at such a rate that everyone would become wealthy and then all would be in the zero percentile bracket.

Its easy to understand how the Waltons think this a good idea.

How exactly working class and poor Republicans buy into this steaming pile of crap is one of the mysteries of the human mind. Con-media is able to convince working class and poor conservatives of absolutely ANYTHING.

people who cannot bring themselves to admit under Progressive governance the very richest got richer and the poorest got poorer AT A FASTER PACE will always tend to be surprised at things; like what others are convinced of.
Maybe if you spent less time finger-pointing and more time looking in a mirror things might be a bit more focused for you????

Wow you have a high propensity for ignoring what other people say.

I return your view of the world back to you.

He mentioned facts. It is simply fact that the upper income groups have seen large rises in their income under Obama while lower income groups have had even lower income under Obama.
What about that statement do you disagree with or think is wrong?

Up until last year we've been under the Bush tax plan, not the Obama tax plan.

So if you're going to blame tax policy for any of the income gap, you blame Bush's tax policy.

Like Obama hasnt been president for 7 years already.