Republican tax cut will not trickle down

[danielpalos]

Already said why, go back and glean for the answer.

No, you didn't say why. You gave no economic reason for cutting spending. I think you are just dogmatically supporting tax cuts because it's your religion now, which would explain why you're impervious to facts. Talking to you about taxes is like talking to a fundamentalist about creationism. You're all wrapped up in dogma and you refuse to consider facts. Because you're a zealot. Because you've given up thinking critically.

I am supporting reduced budgets across the board, I am supporting lower government debt, we can’t keep spending without an effect. I’m for raising taxes if we cut the spending 2-1.

Can you cite any crime, drug, or terror clause in the republican doctrine or our Constitution?

 

[Papageorgio]

Why not refuse to work for minimum wage.

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.

Capital merely need circulate under Capitalism.

And, social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.

Lowering taxes does what, specifically?

Then don’t work for minimum wage refuse to participate. We are not obligated to take minimum wage.

LOL.

Thanks for your support of my position regarding employment at-will in our at will employment States.

I simply refuse to work without a hiring bonus, due to my current requirements.

I should get unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour, in the meantime.

No you shouldn’t. You have no contract. You cannot be compensated when you are not doing anything.

Employment is at-will.

Compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is equitable under Capitalism.

It is at will you have the choice to work or not, and you have a choice to be or not be paid.

 

[The Derp]

I am supporting reduced budgets across the board.

But why? You can't say why. There's no economic reason for it. You can close deficits by raising taxes and/or cutting spending.

,

I am supporting lower government debt, we can’t keep spending without an effect. I’m for raising taxes if we cut the spending 2-1.

Raising taxes closes deficits so you don't need to cut spending if you're raising taxes. So what you're saying makes no sense.

KS raised taxes this year, didn't touch spending, and they ended up with surpluses:

 

[Boss]

So if tax cuts don't create growth, why do them?

Because I'd rather have MY money in MY pocket as opposed to some secret Shush Fund to pay off victims of sexual harassment! That's why!

 

[Papageorgio]

Already said why, go back and glean for the answer.

No, you didn't say why. You gave no economic reason for cutting spending. I think you are just dogmatically supporting tax cuts because it's your religion now, which would explain why you're impervious to facts. Talking to you about taxes is like talking to a fundamentalist about creationism. You're all wrapped up in dogma and you refuse to consider facts. Because you're a zealot. Because you've given up thinking critically.

I am supporting reduced budgets across the board, I am supporting lower government debt, we can’t keep spending without an effect. I’m for raising taxes if we cut the spending 2-1.

Can you cite any crime, drug, or terror clause in the republican doctrine or our Constitution?

Why do I need to? What does that have to do with reducing the national debt. BTW, I’m not a Republican, I’m a conservative.

 

[Papageorgio]

I am supporting reduced budgets across the board.

But why? You can't say why. There's no economic reason for it. You can close deficits by raising taxes and/or cutting spending.

,

I am supporting lower government debt, we can’t keep spending without an effect. I’m for raising taxes if we cut the spending 2-1.

Raising taxes closes deficits so you don't need to cut spending if you're raising taxes. So what you're saying makes no sense.

KS raised taxes this year, didn't touch spending, and they ended up with surpluses:

We are so far in debt as a nation that both need to happen, raising the taxes to 90% of income will not close the gap. So we do both, cut all corporate welfare and reduce all other spend by 25%. That way the debt is paid down quicker and we return to a healthier economy sooner rather than later. Not sure what a KS is and your link is broken on my tablet but I see it is from KOS which like Brietbart is a propaganda site and I don’t read the BS.

 

[The Derp]

Because I'd rather have MY money in MY pocket as opposed to some secret Shush Fund to pay off victims of sexual harassment! That's why!

Tax cuts don't mean more money in your pocket. It means less because to pay for tax cuts, essential services are cut which forces you to spend more out of pocket on health care and education. That's why household debt increased during Reagan and Bush the Dumber; they cut taxes, paid for it with cuts to spending, which forced workers to go into debt to send their kids to college or get much-needed health care.

WHY DO YOU THINK CONSERVATIVES ARE SAYING THEY NEED TO CUT SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE and MEDICAID after they cut taxes????

 

[The Derp]

We are so far in debt as a nation that both need to happen

Why? Debt has increased by exponential amounts under every president, so why is today a special case? Where was all your outrage 17 years ago when Bush cut taxes, produced record deficits that doubled the debt? Nowhere. Because you're posturing on the debt.

raising the taxes to 90% of income will not close the gap.

No one's proposed that, so you're building a straw man because you are not comfortable discussing this topic.

So we do both, cut all corporate welfare and reduce all other spend by 25%. That way the debt is paid down quicker and we return to a healthier economy sooner rather than later. Not sure what a KS is and your link is broken on my tablet but I see it is from KOS which like Brietbart is a propaganda site and I don’t read the BS.

When you cut spending, you cut revenues. When you cut taxes, you cut revenues. When you take spending out of the economy, as you propose, and don't replace it with spending from another source, what is the net effect on the economy?

 

[The Derp]

That way the debt is paid down quicker and we return to a healthier economy sooner rather than later.

Debt has no bearing on economic growth. This was hilariously proven true when Conservatives tried to pretend it did and used the "Growth in the Time of Debt" paper that turned out to be a pack of lies, data omissions, and "spreadsheet errors" that just so happened to confirm the biases of Conservatives.

So now you're arguing a knowingly false position, refuse to correct yourself, which means your position is one of zealotry and dogma.

Not sure what a KS is and your link is broken on my tablet but I see it is from KOS which like Brietbart is a propaganda site and I don’t read the BS.

You fucking idiot.

It's the budget paper from the Kansas State Legislature. KS is the state abbreviation for KS. Obviously, you're a Russian troll and just exposed yourself as such. What American doesn't know what KS is an abbreviation of? A fake American, that's who.

I've reported you as a troll.

 

[Papageorgio]

We are so far in debt as a nation that both need to happen

Why? Debt has increased by exponential amounts under every president, so why is today a special case? Where was all your outrage 17 years ago when Bush cut taxes, produced record deficits that doubled the debt? Nowhere. Because you're posturing on the debt.

raising the taxes to 90% of income will not close the gap.

No one's proposed that, so you're building a straw man because you are not comfortable discussing this topic.

So we do both, cut all corporate welfare and reduce all other spend by 25%. That way the debt is paid down quicker and we return to a healthier economy sooner rather than later. Not sure what a KS is and your link is broken on my tablet but I see it is from KOS which like Brietbart is a propaganda site and I don’t read the BS.

When you cut spending, you cut revenues. When you cut taxes, you cut revenues. When you take spending out of the economy, as you propose, and don't replace it with spending from another source, what is the net effect on the economy?

I have been for cutting spending since the mid 90’s, so I’m not sure what your point there is. You cannot continue to spend and spend and spend and not expect it to bite you in the butt in the future. I also didn’t say anyone purposed raising taxes to 90%, I said that even if we raised it to 90% we could not payoff the debt with our current spending, quit trying to change what I am saying.

We quit spending we will hurt for the short term however no President or Congress member will purpose that because the economy will slow down for awhile until the debt is paid down and then you will see huge growth.

 

[danielpalos]

Already said why, go back and glean for the answer.

No, you didn't say why. You gave no economic reason for cutting spending. I think you are just dogmatically supporting tax cuts because it's your religion now, which would explain why you're impervious to facts. Talking to you about taxes is like talking to a fundamentalist about creationism. You're all wrapped up in dogma and you refuse to consider facts. Because you're a zealot. Because you've given up thinking critically.

I am supporting reduced budgets across the board, I am supporting lower government debt, we can’t keep spending without an effect. I’m for raising taxes if we cut the spending 2-1.

Can you cite any crime, drug, or terror clause in the republican doctrine or our Constitution?

Why do I need to? What does that have to do with reducing the national debt. BTW, I’m not a Republican, I’m a conservative.

Guess where cuts have to come from.

 

[Papageorgio]

That way the debt is paid down quicker and we return to a healthier economy sooner rather than later.

Debt has no bearing on economic growth. This was hilariously proven true when Conservatives tried to pretend it did and used the "Growth in the Time of Debt" paper that turned out to be a pack of lies, data omissions, and "spreadsheet errors" that just so happened to confirm the biases of Conservatives.

So now you're arguing a knowingly false position, refuse to correct yourself, which means your position is one of zealotry and dogma.

Not sure what a KS is and your link is broken on my tablet but I see it is from KOS which like Brietbart is a propaganda site and I don’t read the BS.

You fucking idiot.

It's the budget paper from the Kansas State Legislature. KS is the state abbreviation for KS. Obviously, you're a Russian troll and just exposed yourself as such. What American doesn't know what KS is an abbreviation of? A fake American, that's who.

I've reported you as a troll.

How in the hell am I supposed to know what KS is? Can you not spell? Or is it too much work? Abbreviations are thrown around here all the time, if I don’t know what it means I ask. Sorry that offends you that I don’t read your mind.

Report me as a troll I really don’t care, you ask questions and I answered, you don’t ask me questions I won’t answer you.

 

[Papageorgio]

Already said why, go back and glean for the answer.

No, you didn't say why. You gave no economic reason for cutting spending. I think you are just dogmatically supporting tax cuts because it's your religion now, which would explain why you're impervious to facts. Talking to you about taxes is like talking to a fundamentalist about creationism. You're all wrapped up in dogma and you refuse to consider facts. Because you're a zealot. Because you've given up thinking critically.

I am supporting reduced budgets across the board, I am supporting lower government debt, we can’t keep spending without an effect. I’m for raising taxes if we cut the spending 2-1.

Can you cite any crime, drug, or terror clause in the republican doctrine or our Constitution?

Why do I need to? What does that have to do with reducing the national debt. BTW, I’m not a Republican, I’m a conservative.

Guess where cuts have to come from.

Every part of government, first eliminate all corporate welfare, then cut every department by 25%.

 

[The Derp]

I have been for cutting spending since the mid 90’s, so I’m not sure what your point there is.

My point is that you don't know why you want to cut spending, nor do you know what cutting spending's net effect on the economy will be. If you cut back spending, and dont' replace it from another source, what is the net effect on the economy? The answer is contraction. Cutting spending results in an economic contraction if you're not making up that spending elsewhere. So when you argue stupidly for spending cuts, you're arguing for economic contraction and a recession.

IYou cannot continue to spend and spend and spend and not expect it to bite you in the butt in the future. I also didn’t say anyone purposed raising taxes to 90%, I said that even if we raised it to 90% we could not payoff the debt with our current spending, quit trying to change what I am saying.

First of all, what is the significance and economic impact if the United States pays off its debt entirely? Let's start there and see if you really know your shit, or if you're just some punk poseur posturing on a message board either because you're paid to, or because you need attention. Secondly, we could have paid off our debt but you all cut taxes in 2001, turned a record surplus into four record deficits that doubled the debt in 8 years when if you did literally nothing, you could have paid off the debt in 9 years. Conservatives are so terrible they cannot even do nothing right.

So you screech about debt, without knowing the first thing about it, because you want to scare people into accepting cuts to the essential services you oppose on a purely ideological level. That's even assuming you've put thought into your positions, which it doesn't seem like you did.

We quit spending we will hurt for the short term however no President or Congress member will purpose that because the economy will slow down for awhile until the debt is paid down and then you will see huge growth.

Ah, so now you're admitting that cutting spending hurts "in the short term"...OK, so now at least you admit tax cuts contract an economy. Now what you have yet to prove is that when you cut federal spending, from where are you making up that drop in demand? Do you think that the economy will magically sort itself out? You do know that the only way to come out of a recession (caused by a contracting economy, caused by spending cuts) is to increase spending. So your argument is, and always has been, that cutting taxes increases spending. AND THAT'S JUST NOT TRUE AT ALL. Which makes it dogma, and makes you a zealot.

 

[danielpalos]

They should increase for everybody.....like they did during the recession.
Like they do during every recession.

Except that because of your policies, the middle and lower classes were in debt before and during your recession. You can't save when you're in debt. All you can do is pay down the debt, but that's not savings...that's paying down debt.

And as they pay down their debt they begin to save. Maybe even learning to not spend so much.

Right wing policies will add to the debt.

 

[federalist50]

La Colombe founder: What every CEO knows but won't tell you about the proposed tax bill | Opinion

Congressional Republicans have taken great pains to spin their tax scheme as great for the middle class, but a few marginal changes don’t change the fact that their plan is fundamentally a massive giveaway to the wealthy at the expense of the middle class.” And every CEO knows he’s right.

Congress is working on a bill with the goal of “tax reform” and “stimulating the economy,” with the half-trillion in corporate tax giveaways, most of which is shouldered on the middle class, whose taxes will go up. The wealthy and corporations that will benefit most from this “reform” neither need nor require it.


This “stimulus” clearly falls within the sort of cuts one might expect when the economy needs to be goosed — typically when investment cash supply is low, when interest rates are high, or the stock market is slumping or even tumbling.

That's what so called experts said about JFK's tax cut in 1963 and Reagan's in 1983. However, economic data says otherwise! How do liberals explain why revenue to the government goes up after tax cuts, not down?

 

[The Derp]

How in the hell am I supposed to know what KS is? .

Because in America, you learn state abbreviations in grade school, comrade. Because I posted that numerous times on this thread you pretend you pay attention to. You're just a fucking fraud. Someone pretending and posturing on a message board either cause you're paid to be ab idiot, or you crave attention from others because your life is so meaningless. How could an American not know that KS is the abbreviation for Kansas? Simple; they're not an American, but are pretending to be,.

So KS (KANSAS) cut taxes in 2013, turned surpluses into record deficits, had growth below Obama's national average (which means red states dragged down recovery, not Obama), then had to reverse those tax cuts this year (SB 30), and would ya look at that!? Once taxes are raised, magically the deficits vanish! Wha wha whaaaaaa? How could that be if what you're saying is true? Well, obviously what you're saying isn't true, and you're just posturing.

Can you not spell? Or is it too much work? Abbreviations are thrown around here all the time, if I don’t know what it means I ask. Sorry that offends you that I don’t read your mind.Report me as a troll I really don’t care, you ask questions and I answered, you don’t ask me questions I won’t answer you.

You won't answer because you're a piece of shit coward who isn't secure in his own argument.

 

[Boss]

Because I'd rather have MY money in MY pocket as opposed to some secret Shush Fund to pay off victims of sexual harassment! That's why!

Tax cuts don't mean more money in your pocket. It means less because to pay for tax cuts, essential services are cut which forces you to spend more out of pocket on health care and education. That's why household debt increased during Reagan and Bush the Dumber; they cut taxes, paid for it with cuts to spending, which forced workers to go into debt to send their kids to college or get much-needed health care.

WHY DO YOU THINK CONSERVATIVES ARE SAYING THEY NEED TO CUT SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE and MEDICAID after they cut taxes????

That's fine with me. I can pay for my own shit and it will be cheaper than obtaining it through bureaucratic government entities.

Household debt increased because interest rates were low again. It's the law of supply and demand in a free market system. Health care and college would cost about 1/10th of what it currently costs if we could get the government out of the way. It is decades of government policy and mandates which have driven the cost through the roof and it can only be solved by getting rid of the government regulations and mandates.

 

[The Derp]

That's what so called experts said about JFK's tax cut in 1963 and Reagan's in 1983. However, economic data says otherwise

No it fucking doesn't. You're a fraud and a liar.

JFK didn't cut taxes in 1963, LBJ cut them in 1964. Secondly, from 1964-1968, government spending doubled. So you want to know why the economy did well? Government doubled its spending.

Also, check it out: Reagan grew spending by more than he grew revenues.

Reagan Spending:
1981: $678,2B
1989: $1,143.7
69% growth in spending

Reagan Revenues
1981: $599.3
1989: $991.1
65% growth in revenues

SO WHAT WERE YOU FUCKING SAYING, LIAR?????

 

[Skull Pilot]

It's a good thing for all that the left are a bunch of liars every day all the time. that means that everything they say is wrong and this will trickle down and the economy will continue to improve. History has shown this to be true.

Time to celebrate!

History has shown that corporations and the wealthy just keep the money

So what? It is their money after all.

And where do they keep their money? In the stock market where it is used by other businesses? In banks where it is used to fund loans for all kinds of reasons?