Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

[The Derp]

Not until they create new or expand existing businesses.

By why would they create a new business, or expand one if there's no increase in their revenues? This is getting back to the magical thinking I was referring to earlier with you...where your economic policy relies on the faith that there is invisible demand that can only be satisfied by providing a supply first. The Field of Dreams approach to economics, if you will..."if you build it, they will come". Yeah, that only works in the movies. Increasing the supply does nothing to increase demand. Wrong part of the equation, pal. A business only expands if they have growing revenues to justify it. No bank is ever going to give your business a loan to expand if your revenues are flat or declining.

As long as you ignore every time it's been done.

Which has been never. So I'm ignoring nothing. Literally, nothing.

Increased savings is a positive, not a negative.

First of all, NO IT ISN'T. An economy only expands when there is spending. If you are not spending, then you are not growing the economy. Increased savings means money is not going into the consumer economy, where it increases consumer demand in order to create jobs. Instead, the money is sitting in banks, not being lent out, not used to "invest", and not making its way into the consumer economy. Increased savings is not a positive at all. Money needs to circulate in order for the economy to grow. If everyone decides at one time that they are going to pull back their spending in order to save, what do you think is the effect on the economy?

As long as you ignore every time it's been done.

Which has been never. So I'm ignoring nothing. Literally, nothing.

Rich people are investing all the time.That's how they got rich.

Nooooooooo...that's not how they got rich. There are myriad ways for people to be rich, but a lot of rich people today inherited their wealth...which means they did nothing to earn it other than be born and not drown in a bowl of soup. Or they got it by winning the lottery. Rich people are not investing all the time, and when they do, they're not investing here in the US. Global profits are where the game is now being played. That's what they're working towards. Handing rich people a tax break means they're just as likely to "invest" that tax break in a third world country as they would be here in the US. You cannot make such a statement that they are investing all the time without the caveat of where they may be doing this "investing". You want us to believe it's all domestic. The reality is that it mostly all global.

Your theory is that the wealthy's savings are used by banks or whomever to "invest" in new companies and businesses.
Yup.

Which is why it's just a theory and not reality.

YThe reality is that the wealthy stash their money in overseas accounts Why would they do that?.

Because they're not patriotic and don't care about this country.

or pour it into derivatives and secondary markets like what happened during the Bush Mortgage Bubble.
Pour it into derivatives? LOL!
Liberals are funny with all their financial idiocy.

Unfortunately for you, that is precisely what they did. That's how the secondary and tertiary markets became so inflated. Someone was pouring gobs of money into those markets beginning in 2004 and extending into 2007. We know it wasn't the middle class or lower class because their household debt was doubling during Bush the Dumber. So who was doing all this gambling, and with whose money were they doing it? We already know the wealthy increased their savings during the Bush Tax Cuts. Since 460,000 jobs were lost from January 2001 to January 2009, the "savings" the wealthy were making...the same ones you say are "invested"...must have been going into the secondary and tertiary mortgage markets, right? Because it wasn't going to business creation or expansion, as evidenced by the decline in employment over the 8 year period.

And that, friends, is how you destroy a right-wing argument.

Also, the premise of your tax cuts; that they will unleash increased trickle-down spending The idea behind supply-side tax cuts is to increase business formation, increase hiring.

The only way you can manufacture demand is through mandates. "If you build it, they will come" is magical thinking.

So since tax cuts don't create jobs, don't create growth,They do both.

Well, they didn't create jobs or growth during Bush the Dumber. They didn't create jobs or growth in Kansas. So why would they magically start working now?

We had 8 years of trickle-down in practice during Bush.And 4 years under Obama.

Yeah, and it didn't really work. Obama's economy didn't start cooking until after he let the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the wealthy at the end of 2012. Remember that? You all said that if he did that, it would lead to a recession, job loss, and a market collapse. Wrong on all three. So if you were wrong then, why would you be right now?

Federal tax cuts create deficits. Always have, always will You said they cut state and local spending. Were you lying?

If federal spending is cut, then states have to make up for the gap. In most cases, red states just raid the welfare block grant to plug their deficits. Arizona did that very thing last year. Kansas too. Which would mean that the entire Conservative economic philosophy is dependent on welfare in order to survive. Which would technically make Conservatism the ultimate in welfare dependency.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not until they create new or expand existing businesses.

By why would they create a new business, or expand one if there's no increase in their revenues? This is getting back to the magical thinking I was referring to earlier with you...where your economic policy relies on the faith that there is invisible demand that can only be satisfied by providing a supply first. The Field of Dreams approach to economics, if you will..."if you build it, they will come". Yeah, that only works in the movies. Increasing the supply does nothing to increase demand. Wrong part of the equation, pal. A business only expands if they have growing revenues to justify it. No bank is ever going to give your business a loan to expand if your revenues are flat or declining.

As long as you ignore every time it's been done.

Which has been never. So I'm ignoring nothing. Literally, nothing.

Increased savings is a positive, not a negative.

First of all, NO IT ISN'T. An economy only expands when there is spending. If you are not spending, then you are not growing the economy. Increased savings means money is not going into the consumer economy, where it increases consumer demand in order to create jobs. Instead, the money is sitting in banks, not being lent out, not used to "invest", and not making its way into the consumer economy. Increased savings is not a positive at all. Money needs to circulate in order for the economy to grow. If everyone decides at one time that they are going to pull back their spending in order to save, what do you think is the effect on the economy?

As long as you ignore every time it's been done.

Which has been never. So I'm ignoring nothing. Literally, nothing.

Rich people are investing all the time.That's how they got rich.

Nooooooooo...that's not how they got rich. There are myriad ways for people to be rich, but a lot of rich people today inherited their wealth...which means they did nothing to earn it other than be born and not drown in a bowl of soup. Or they got it by winning the lottery. Rich people are not investing all the time, and when they do, they're not investing here in the US. Global profits are where the game is now being played. That's what they're working towards. Handing rich people a tax break means they're just as likely to "invest" that tax break in a third world country as they would be here in the US. You cannot make such a statement that they are investing all the time without the caveat of where they may be doing this "investing". You want us to believe it's all domestic. The reality is that it mostly all global.

Your theory is that the wealthy's savings are used by banks or whomever to "invest" in new companies and businesses.
Yup.

Which is why it's just a theory and not reality.

YThe reality is that the wealthy stash their money in overseas accounts Why would they do that?.

Because they're not patriotic and don't care about this country.

or pour it into derivatives and secondary markets like what happened during the Bush Mortgage Bubble.
Pour it into derivatives? LOL!
Liberals are funny with all their financial idiocy.

Unfortunately for you, that is precisely what they did. That's how the secondary and tertiary markets became so inflated. Someone was pouring gobs of money into those markets beginning in 2004 and extending into 2007. We know it wasn't the middle class or lower class because their household debt was doubling during Bush the Dumber. So who was doing all this gambling, and with whose money were they doing it? We already know the wealthy increased their savings during the Bush Tax Cuts. Since 460,000 jobs were lost from January 2001 to January 2009, the "savings" the wealthy were making...the same ones you say are "invested"...must have been going into the secondary and tertiary mortgage markets, right? Because it wasn't going to business creation or expansion, as evidenced by the decline in employment over the 8 year period.

And that, friends, is how you destroy a right-wing argument.

Also, the premise of your tax cuts; that they will unleash increased trickle-down spending The idea behind supply-side tax cuts is to increase business formation, increase hiring.

The only way you can manufacture demand is through mandates. "If you build it, they will come" is magical thinking.

So since tax cuts don't create jobs, don't create growth,They do both.

Well, they didn't create jobs or growth during Bush the Dumber. They didn't create jobs or growth in Kansas. So why would they magically start working now?

We had 8 years of trickle-down in practice during Bush.And 4 years under Obama.

Yeah, and it didn't really work. Obama's economy didn't start cooking until after he let the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the wealthy at the end of 2012. Remember that? You all said that if he did that, it would lead to a recession, job loss, and a market collapse. Wrong on all three. So if you were wrong then, why would you be right now?

Federal tax cuts create deficits. Always have, always will You said they cut state and local spending. Were you lying?

If federal spending is cut, then states have to make up for the gap. In most cases, red states just raid the welfare block grant to plug their deficits. Arizona did that very thing last year. Kansas too. Which would mean that the entire Conservative economic philosophy is dependent on welfare in order to survive. Which would technically make Conservatism the ultimate in welfare dependency.

By why would they create a new business, or expand one

Those rich people are always plotting to make more money.

if there's no increase in their revenues?

When has a large tax cut resulted in no increase in revenues, ever?

Yeah, that only works in the movies.

And every time we cut taxes.

Which has been never.

Except for the 20s, 60s, 80s, 00s.......

Increased savings is a positive, not a negative.

First of all, NO IT ISN'T.

Wow!

Nooooooooo...that's not how they got rich.

Nobody gets rich by investing? WOW!

a lot of rich people today inherited their wealth...

How many?

Rich people are not investing all the time, and when they do, they're not investing here in the US.

It's true, morons like Obama make it harder to invest here.

Which is why it's just a theory and not reality.

Businesses don't borrow money from banks? Is that your claim?

Well, they didn't create jobs or growth during Bush the Dumber.

They did both, under Bush and Reagan.

Yeah, and it didn't really work. Obama's economy didn't start cooking until after he let the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the wealthy at the end of 2012.

Explain why the Obama tax hikes increased growth.

If federal spending is cut, then states have to make up for the gap.

When was federal spending cut?

In most cases, red states just raid the welfare block grant to plug their deficits.

Why is the federal government giving grants to the states?
You want to spend money, raise it yourself.

 

[The Derp]

We need to cut spending...a lot.And regulations...a lot.

Why? Businesses have made record profits since Obama each year, the market is at its highest levels ever, and we are at full employment. So explain how cutting regulations and taxes solves a problem we don't have? How does cutting spending and regulations lead to increased consumer demand? The answer, of course, is that it doesn't. And what spending to cut? Medicare? Good luck with that. Social Security? Ha! You're dreaming. Defense? No way would you ever let them cut defense. So even if you cut all discretionary spending, eliminate everything other than those three programs, you are still running a deficit and you've taken trillions of government demand out of the economy and replaced it with nothing. So the result would be a depression...not a recession, a depression. And what regulations to cut? Can you name any? I doubt it.

I don't like idiotic wasted spending.

Yet you like tax cuts, which are idiotic and wasteful and produce nothing of value and only create deficits and debt. So again, what spending? Medicare? Social Security? Defense? And if you cut spending, how are you replacing that spending in the economy? Because cutting spending leads to recessions, regardless of where you're cutting the spending. If you aren't making up for the cut in spending elsewhere, then you are doing what to the economy? Contracting it. And what is it called when an economy contracts? A recession.

From where do you think they comeFrom idiotic wasted spending.

We went from a $236B surplus in 2000 to a $377B deficit by 2003. A swing of nearly $613B. Over that same period of time, spending went from $1.789T in 2000 to $2.159T in 2003, an increase of $370B. So revenues were reduced as a result of tax cuts when, if they had not been and outlays remained the same as they are in this chart, we would have had surpluses as far as the eye could see. But you all just had to pass your stupid tax cuts that erased a surplus and produced four record deficits in 8 years, when we could have paid the debt off in 9 if you had done literally nothing. Conservatives are so terrible, they can't even do nothing right. SMH.

Your argument does hinge on a peak rate. You said the rate yourself was 25%..25% should be the top rate, I don't think 25% is the peak rate on the Laffer Curve.

So the 25% seems wholly arbitrary. You are basing that on your emotions like a snowflake. So emotional! Then you have your little outburst about government being wasteful and inefficient. Hmmm...wonder why that could be? Oh right, because Conservatives control all three branches of government, and a majority of states. So if government is wasteful and inefficient, it's only because people like you are in control of it. So again, hard to see how you're not the cause of the very thing you are complaining about. Conservatives say government is the problem, then get elected and prove it.

There are three programs that make up the lion's share of the budget; Social Security, Defense, Medicare/Medicaid. Yup, lots of waste there too.

Then you should love Obamacare since it cut out about $700B in waste from Medicare by no longer reimbursing providers for procedures to treat conditions that arose from the treatment of other conditions. Did you even know that? Doubt it.

(BUT WAIT - YOU JUST SAID BEFORE YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT THE EFFECTS ON THE BUDGET) If a tax cut lets....

I'm just gonna stop you there. Firstly, you began the statement with an "if", which means you are about to make a non-factual statement and instead argue hypothetical/theory/fantasy. Tax cuts result in increased taxes and fees for the middle and lower class. I've shown you how that's the case multiple times, using Kansas as the example. Now you are a bit confused on your own position. You say you don't care about the impact of tax cuts on the budget, yet then you complain about deficits and debt which are caused by tax cuts. So help me understand your position; do you not care about the budget when it comes to things you have an ideological obsession over? So you're willing to look the other way as tax cut after tax cut creates deficit after deficit?

It's funny that you think more money in the hands of the people doesn't increase demand.

It's not something I think...it's something that I accept because it's fact. We saw it very plainly during Bush the Dumber. Income taxes were cut, yet household debt doubled. So how did the tax cut result in more money in the hands of people if those people all went into debt?

None of them say it should be as low as it is now. None of them? LOL! Prove it.

Actually, it's not on me to prove a negative. It's on you to prove that some do. Stop being so lazy. I'm not doing your work for you.

Apologies...it was 28% from 1988-90. And, a recession started in 1990. Coincidence? The previous recession ended in November 1982, when should the next recession have started? Why?

The previous recession started in 1981, again, during Reagan. The 1990 recession happened despite what were record low income tax rates on the top. So how could the central premise of your argument hold water since there was a recession that started while tax rates on the top were at historical lows? Shouldn't the opposite have been the case? With record low income tax levels, shouldn't there have been more spending? That's what you're arguing. But that wasn't what happened, was it? So why are you still arguing on behalf of something you know is demonstrably false? I think it's because of your ego. That's what I think this is all about; preserving your fragile ego so you don't have to admit you're wrong. Pathetic. What a snowflake!

 

[danielpalos]

Not until they create new or expand existing businesses.

By why would they create a new business, or expand one if there's no increase in their revenues? This is getting back to the magical thinking I was referring to earlier with you...where your economic policy relies on the faith that there is invisible demand that can only be satisfied by providing a supply first. The Field of Dreams approach to economics, if you will..."if you build it, they will come". Yeah, that only works in the movies. Increasing the supply does nothing to increase demand. Wrong part of the equation, pal. A business only expands if they have growing revenues to justify it. No bank is ever going to give your business a loan to expand if your revenues are flat or declining.

As long as you ignore every time it's been done.

Which has been never. So I'm ignoring nothing. Literally, nothing.

Increased savings is a positive, not a negative.

First of all, NO IT ISN'T. An economy only expands when there is spending. If you are not spending, then you are not growing the economy. Increased savings means money is not going into the consumer economy, where it increases consumer demand in order to create jobs. Instead, the money is sitting in banks, not being lent out, not used to "invest", and not making its way into the consumer economy. Increased savings is not a positive at all. Money needs to circulate in order for the economy to grow. If everyone decides at one time that they are going to pull back their spending in order to save, what do you think is the effect on the economy?

As long as you ignore every time it's been done.

Which has been never. So I'm ignoring nothing. Literally, nothing.

Rich people are investing all the time.That's how they got rich.

Nooooooooo...that's not how they got rich. There are myriad ways for people to be rich, but a lot of rich people today inherited their wealth...which means they did nothing to earn it other than be born and not drown in a bowl of soup. Or they got it by winning the lottery. Rich people are not investing all the time, and when they do, they're not investing here in the US. Global profits are where the game is now being played. That's what they're working towards. Handing rich people a tax break means they're just as likely to "invest" that tax break in a third world country as they would be here in the US. You cannot make such a statement that they are investing all the time without the caveat of where they may be doing this "investing". You want us to believe it's all domestic. The reality is that it mostly all global.

Your theory is that the wealthy's savings are used by banks or whomever to "invest" in new companies and businesses.
Yup.

Which is why it's just a theory and not reality.

YThe reality is that the wealthy stash their money in overseas accounts Why would they do that?.

Because they're not patriotic and don't care about this country.

or pour it into derivatives and secondary markets like what happened during the Bush Mortgage Bubble.
Pour it into derivatives? LOL!
Liberals are funny with all their financial idiocy.

Unfortunately for you, that is precisely what they did. That's how the secondary and tertiary markets became so inflated. Someone was pouring gobs of money into those markets beginning in 2004 and extending into 2007. We know it wasn't the middle class or lower class because their household debt was doubling during Bush the Dumber. So who was doing all this gambling, and with whose money were they doing it? We already know the wealthy increased their savings during the Bush Tax Cuts. Since 460,000 jobs were lost from January 2001 to January 2009, the "savings" the wealthy were making...the same ones you say are "invested"...must have been going into the secondary and tertiary mortgage markets, right? Because it wasn't going to business creation or expansion, as evidenced by the decline in employment over the 8 year period.

And that, friends, is how you destroy a right-wing argument.

Also, the premise of your tax cuts; that they will unleash increased trickle-down spending The idea behind supply-side tax cuts is to increase business formation, increase hiring.

The only way you can manufacture demand is through mandates. "If you build it, they will come" is magical thinking.

So since tax cuts don't create jobs, don't create growth,They do both.

Well, they didn't create jobs or growth during Bush the Dumber. They didn't create jobs or growth in Kansas. So why would they magically start working now?

We had 8 years of trickle-down in practice during Bush.And 4 years under Obama.

Yeah, and it didn't really work. Obama's economy didn't start cooking until after he let the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the wealthy at the end of 2012. Remember that? You all said that if he did that, it would lead to a recession, job loss, and a market collapse. Wrong on all three. So if you were wrong then, why would you be right now?

Federal tax cuts create deficits. Always have, always will You said they cut state and local spending. Were you lying?

If federal spending is cut, then states have to make up for the gap. In most cases, red states just raid the welfare block grant to plug their deficits. Arizona did that very thing last year. Kansas too. Which would mean that the entire Conservative economic philosophy is dependent on welfare in order to survive. Which would technically make Conservatism the ultimate in welfare dependency.

By why would they create a new business, or expand one

Those rich people are always plotting to make more money.

if there's no increase in their revenues?

When has a large tax cut resulted in no increase in revenues, ever?

Yeah, that only works in the movies.

And every time we cut taxes.

Which has been never.

Except for the 20s, 60s, 80s, 00s.......

Increased savings is a positive, not a negative.

First of all, NO IT ISN'T.

Wow!

Nooooooooo...that's not how they got rich.

Nobody gets rich by investing? WOW!

a lot of rich people today inherited their wealth...

How many?

Rich people are not investing all the time, and when they do, they're not investing here in the US.

It's true, morons like Obama make it harder to invest here.

Which is why it's just a theory and not reality.

Businesses don't borrow money from banks? Is that your claim?

Well, they didn't create jobs or growth during Bush the Dumber.

They did both, under Bush and Reagan.

Yeah, and it didn't really work. Obama's economy didn't start cooking until after he let the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the wealthy at the end of 2012.

Explain why the Obama tax hikes increased growth.

If federal spending is cut, then states have to make up for the gap.

When was federal spending cut?

In most cases, red states just raid the welfare block grant to plug their deficits.

Why is the federal government giving grants to the states?
You want to spend money, raise it yourself.

cutting taxes is merely, speculation, not results oriented action.

 

[The Derp]

By why would they create a new business, or expand one Those rich people are always plotting to make more money. if there's no increase in their revenues? When has a large tax cut resulted in no increase in revenues, ever?

2001, 2002, 2003, 2004. Revenue for all four of those years was below revenue in 2000. So the tax cuts decreased revenues for four consecutive years below the level revenues were at the year prior to the tax cut.

You can see it right here.

What you don't see happen, is revenues declining when taxes are raised. In fact, you see revenues growing. So if raising taxes creates more revenues, cutting taxes reduces them. Because, math.

You are still clinging to the fantasy that magically somehow, "if you build it, they will come". That may work on ghostly ballplayers, but it doesn't work in reality.

Yeah, that only works in the movies. And every time we cut taxes.

So we cut taxes in 2001. The result? A surplus erased into record deficits, revenue below the previous level for four consecutive years, 460,000 jobs lost, 1.76% growth, and a doubling of the household debt. What you didn't see? Increased growth. Job growth. Wage growth. Savings growth (except among the wealthy and only at a 4% rate). So what exactly was built and who came to it?

Which has been never.Except for the 20s, 60s, 80s, 00s.......

Dear God, do we really have to rehash this again?

The 20's laissez-faire policies lead to the largest income gap ever (except for the one that currently exists) and the market crash that wiped out all those gains overnight. The 1960's saw increased revenues as a result of dramatic increases in federal spending; 25% from 1961-1963 and 50% from 1964-1968. The 80's was due entirely to the Fed lowering interest rates beginning in 1982, and Congress increasing spending for 1983. You said yourself the Reagan recession ended in November 1982, even though the unemployment rate would peak in December 1982 and the tax cut took effect in January 1982. And the 00's, see above. I already dissected those.

Increased savings is a positive, not a negative. First of all, NO IT ISN'T. Wow!

And this is precisely why your economy policies always fail...because you don't know the first thing about how our economy operates. We are a consumer economy...70% of our economy is based on consumer spending. If consumers ratchet back spending in order to save (actually, more likely to pay down debts they incurred during Bush the Dumber and Reagan) then what happens to consumer spending? It declines. And what happens then? The economy contracts. And what do we call it when an economy contracts? A recession. The whole premise of your bullshit argument is that cutting taxes lets business expand, but business can expand without a tax cut, as they have been doing since Obama. So since corporate profits are at all time highs, since corporate cash-on-hand is at all-time highs, since the market is at all-time highs, and since we're at full employment, explain to me how a tax cut will solve for a problem that doesn't exist?

Rich people are not investing all the time, and when they do, they're not investing here in the US. It's true, morons like Obama make it harder to invest here.

How so? Conservatives have controlled the House since 2011, and the House and Senate since 2015. Conservatives also control a majority of states since 2011 too. So if it's hard to invest here, it's only because you guys made it so. With your terrible economics and questionable accounting. BTW - it's not hard to invest here at all. They just choose not to because it's a globalized economy, and global profits mean way more now than they did 17 years ago.

Which is why it's just a theory and not reality. Businesses don't borrow money from banks? Is that your claim?

If a business isn't increasing revenues, no bank is going to loan that business money...unless it's a Russian bank and you're Donald Trump. Do you think banks just hand out loans to businesses willy-nilly? It doesn't seem like you have a ton of experience in this subject. Any loan officer will tell you, unless you can show your revenues increasing (thus showing growth), you ain't getting another dime from that bank no matter how much you may want it or how much faith you have.

Well, they didn't create jobs or growth during Bush the Dumber. They did both, under Bush and Reagan.

Bush lost net 460,000 private sector jobs after 8 years.

Reagan had a 10.8% unemployment rate more than a year after his tax cuts were passed. Then he raised taxes 11 times and increased defense spending. Tax cuts didn't create shit. All they did was create deficits and debt. Same thing is happening in Kansas right now.

Yeah, and it didn't really work. Obama's economy didn't start cooking until after he let the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the wealthy at the end of 2012. Explain why the Obama tax hikes increased growth.

Simple; increased federal revenues reduced the deficit significantly which gave long-term planners optimism when making their LRPs. Let's also not forget that at the time, you people were saying if the Bush Tax Cuts on the rich were to expire, there would be job loss, a market crash, and a recession. Wrong, wrong, wrong. So if you were wrong then, why would you be right now?

If federal spending is cut, then states have to make up for the gap. When was federal spending cut?

Sequestration, for starters. Remember? It was the thing you wanted because you claimed austerity was the only way to get out of the recession you clowns got us into. A claim, by the way, that was based on a lie; the Rogoff-Reinhart "Growth in the Time of Debt" paper thingy that Conservatives were using as their holy bible as they argued for Sequestration. You remember that, right? What was the big hullabaloo about that paper? Oh right, it was complete and utter bullshit. So we based policy on what was a deliberate undertaking by shady Conservatives to promote austerity when it was unnecessary to do so.

In most cases, red states just raid the welfare block grant to plug their deficits.
Why is the federal government giving grants to the states?

Because that's how Conservatives reformed welfare in 1996. They did it that way specifically so they could use the block grant to pay for their tax cuts, instead of people getting welfare directly from the Feds. So Conservatives quite literally use welfare to fund their economic and fiscal schemes. Conservatism is, and always has been a welfare scheme for the wealthy.

 

[danielpalos]

We need a definite Capital plan, that will be, fine and wonderful.

 

[danielpalos]

By why would they create a new business, or expand one Those rich people are always plotting to make more money. if there's no increase in their revenues? When has a large tax cut resulted in no increase in revenues, ever?

2001, 2002, 2003, 2004. Revenue for all four of those years was below revenue in 2000. So the tax cuts decreased revenues for four consecutive years below the level revenues were at the year prior to the tax cut.

You can see it right here.

What you don't see happen, is revenues declining when taxes are raised. In fact, you see revenues growing. So if raising taxes creates more revenues, cutting taxes reduces them. Because, math.

You are still clinging to the fantasy that magically somehow, "if you build it, they will come". That may work on ghostly ballplayers, but it doesn't work in reality.

Yeah, that only works in the movies. And every time we cut taxes.

So we cut taxes in 2001. The result? A surplus erased into record deficits, revenue below the previous level for four consecutive years, 460,000 jobs lost, 1.76% growth, and a doubling of the household debt. What you didn't see? Increased growth. Job growth. Wage growth. Savings growth (except among the wealthy and only at a 4% rate). So what exactly was built and who came to it?

Which has been never.Except for the 20s, 60s, 80s, 00s.......

Dear God, do we really have to rehash this again?

The 20's laissez-faire policies lead to the largest income gap ever (except for the one that currently exists) and the market crash that wiped out all those gains overnight. The 1960's saw increased revenues as a result of dramatic increases in federal spending; 25% from 1961-1963 and 50% from 1964-1968. The 80's was due entirely to the Fed lowering interest rates beginning in 1982, and Congress increasing spending for 1983. You said yourself the Reagan recession ended in November 1982, even though the unemployment rate would peak in December 1982 and the tax cut took effect in January 1982. And the 00's, see above. I already dissected those.

Increased savings is a positive, not a negative. First of all, NO IT ISN'T. Wow!

And this is precisely why your economy policies always fail...because you don't know the first thing about how our economy operates. We are a consumer economy...70% of our economy is based on consumer spending. If consumers ratchet back spending in order to save (actually, more likely to pay down debts they incurred during Bush the Dumber and Reagan) then what happens to consumer spending? It declines. And what happens then? The economy contracts. And what do we call it when an economy contracts? A recession. The whole premise of your bullshit argument is that cutting taxes lets business expand, but business can expand without a tax cut, as they have been doing since Obama. So since corporate profits are at all time highs, since corporate cash-on-hand is at all-time highs, since the market is at all-time highs, and since we're at full employment, explain to me how a tax cut will solve for a problem that doesn't exist?

Rich people are not investing all the time, and when they do, they're not investing here in the US. It's true, morons like Obama make it harder to invest here.

How so? Conservatives have controlled the House since 2011, and the House and Senate since 2015. Conservatives also control a majority of states since 2011 too. So if it's hard to invest here, it's only because you guys made it so. With your terrible economics and questionable accounting. BTW - it's not hard to invest here at all. They just choose not to because it's a globalized economy, and global profits mean way more now than they did 17 years ago.

Which is why it's just a theory and not reality. Businesses don't borrow money from banks? Is that your claim?

If a business isn't increasing revenues, no bank is going to loan that business money...unless it's a Russian bank and you're Donald Trump. Do you think banks just hand out loans to businesses willy-nilly? It doesn't seem like you have a ton of experience in this subject. Any loan officer will tell you, unless you can show your revenues increasing (thus showing growth), you ain't getting another dime from that bank no matter how much you may want it or how much faith you have.

Well, they didn't create jobs or growth during Bush the Dumber. They did both, under Bush and Reagan.

Bush lost net 460,000 private sector jobs after 8 years.

Reagan had a 10.8% unemployment rate more than a year after his tax cuts were passed. Then he raised taxes 11 times and increased defense spending. Tax cuts didn't create shit. All they did was create deficits and debt. Same thing is happening in Kansas right now.

Yeah, and it didn't really work. Obama's economy didn't start cooking until after he let the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the wealthy at the end of 2012. Explain why the Obama tax hikes increased growth.

Simple; increased federal revenues reduced the deficit significantly which gave long-term planners optimism when making their LRPs. Let's also not forget that at the time, you people were saying if the Bush Tax Cuts on the rich were to expire, there would be job loss, a market crash, and a recession. Wrong, wrong, wrong. So if you were wrong then, why would you be right now?

If federal spending is cut, then states have to make up for the gap. When was federal spending cut?

Sequestration, for starters. Remember? It was the thing you wanted because you claimed austerity was the only way to get out of the recession you clowns got us into. A claim, by the way, that was based on a lie; the Rogoff-Reinhart "Growth in the Time of Debt" paper thingy that Conservatives were using as their holy bible as they argued for Sequestration. You remember that, right? What was the big hullabaloo about that paper? Oh right, it was complete and utter bullshit. So we based policy on what was a deliberate undertaking by shady Conservatives to promote austerity when it was unnecessary to do so.

In most cases, red states just raid the welfare block grant to plug their deficits.
Why is the federal government giving grants to the states?

Because that's how Conservatives reformed welfare in 1996. They did it that way specifically so they could use the block grant to pay for their tax cuts, instead of people getting welfare directly from the Feds. So Conservatives quite literally use welfare to fund their economic and fiscal schemes. Conservatism is, and always has been a welfare scheme for the wealthy.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, on an Institutional basis?

 

[The Derp]

I didn't say it was.I believe in tax cuts, even if we're already below the peak Laffer Rate.

Because you are emotional. No other reason. Certainly no economic or fiscal reasons.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We need to cut spending...a lot.And regulations...a lot.

Why? Businesses have made record profits since Obama each year, the market is at its highest levels ever, and we are at full employment. So explain how cutting regulations and taxes solves a problem we don't have? How does cutting spending and regulations lead to increased consumer demand? The answer, of course, is that it doesn't. And what spending to cut? Medicare? Good luck with that. Social Security? Ha! You're dreaming. Defense? No way would you ever let them cut defense. So even if you cut all discretionary spending, eliminate everything other than those three programs, you are still running a deficit and you've taken trillions of government demand out of the economy and replaced it with nothing. So the result would be a depression...not a recession, a depression. And what regulations to cut? Can you name any? I doubt it.

I don't like idiotic wasted spending.

Yet you like tax cuts, which are idiotic and wasteful and produce nothing of value and only create deficits and debt. So again, what spending? Medicare? Social Security? Defense? And if you cut spending, how are you replacing that spending in the economy? Because cutting spending leads to recessions, regardless of where you're cutting the spending. If you aren't making up for the cut in spending elsewhere, then you are doing what to the economy? Contracting it. And what is it called when an economy contracts? A recession.

From where do you think they comeFrom idiotic wasted spending.

We went from a $236B surplus in 2000 to a $377B deficit by 2003. A swing of nearly $613B. Over that same period of time, spending went from $1.789T in 2000 to $2.159T in 2003, an increase of $370B. So revenues were reduced as a result of tax cuts when, if they had not been and outlays remained the same as they are in this chart, we would have had surpluses as far as the eye could see. But you all just had to pass your stupid tax cuts that erased a surplus and produced four record deficits in 8 years, when we could have paid the debt off in 9 if you had done literally nothing. Conservatives are so terrible, they can't even do nothing right. SMH.

Your argument does hinge on a peak rate. You said the rate yourself was 25%..25% should be the top rate, I don't think 25% is the peak rate on the Laffer Curve.

So the 25% seems wholly arbitrary. You are basing that on your emotions like a snowflake. So emotional! Then you have your little outburst about government being wasteful and inefficient. Hmmm...wonder why that could be? Oh right, because Conservatives control all three branches of government, and a majority of states. So if government is wasteful and inefficient, it's only because people like you are in control of it. So again, hard to see how you're not the cause of the very thing you are complaining about. Conservatives say government is the problem, then get elected and prove it.

There are three programs that make up the lion's share of the budget; Social Security, Defense, Medicare/Medicaid. Yup, lots of waste there too.

Then you should love Obamacare since it cut out about $700B in waste from Medicare by no longer reimbursing providers for procedures to treat conditions that arose from the treatment of other conditions. Did you even know that? Doubt it.

(BUT WAIT - YOU JUST SAID BEFORE YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT THE EFFECTS ON THE BUDGET) If a tax cut lets....

I'm just gonna stop you there. Firstly, you began the statement with an "if", which means you are about to make a non-factual statement and instead argue hypothetical/theory/fantasy. Tax cuts result in increased taxes and fees for the middle and lower class. I've shown you how that's the case multiple times, using Kansas as the example. Now you are a bit confused on your own position. You say you don't care about the impact of tax cuts on the budget, yet then you complain about deficits and debt which are caused by tax cuts. So help me understand your position; do you not care about the budget when it comes to things you have an ideological obsession over? So you're willing to look the other way as tax cut after tax cut creates deficit after deficit?

It's funny that you think more money in the hands of the people doesn't increase demand.

It's not something I think...it's something that I accept because it's fact. We saw it very plainly during Bush the Dumber. Income taxes were cut, yet household debt doubled. So how did the tax cut result in more money in the hands of people if those people all went into debt?

None of them say it should be as low as it is now. None of them? LOL! Prove it.

Actually, it's not on me to prove a negative. It's on you to prove that some do. Stop being so lazy. I'm not doing your work for you.

Apologies...it was 28% from 1988-90. And, a recession started in 1990. Coincidence? The previous recession ended in November 1982, when should the next recession have started? Why?

The previous recession started in 1981, again, during Reagan. The 1990 recession happened despite what were record low income tax rates on the top. So how could the central premise of your argument hold water since there was a recession that started while tax rates on the top were at historical lows? Shouldn't the opposite have been the case? With record low income tax levels, shouldn't there have been more spending? That's what you're arguing. But that wasn't what happened, was it? So why are you still arguing on behalf of something you know is demonstrably false? I think it's because of your ego. That's what I think this is all about; preserving your fragile ego so you don't have to admit you're wrong. Pathetic. What a snowflake!

Yet you like tax cuts, which are idiotic and wasteful and produce nothing of value

Of course, liberals think only government spending is good, letting people spend their own money is bad.
They should run on that platform.

Because cutting spending leads to recessions, regardless of where you're cutting the spending.

Cutting spending leads to recessions? How much? If we cut $1 will that cause a recession? $1 billion?
$150 billion? We can never ever cut any spending because.....recession?

So revenues were reduced as a result of tax cuts when, if they had not been

How much would revenues have dropped without the tax cuts?

So the 25% seems wholly arbitrary.

25% seems sufficient.

Then you have your little outburst about government being wasteful and inefficient.

Government isn't wasteful and inefficient? DUDE!

I'm just gonna stop you there. Firstly, you began the statement with an "if", which means you are about to make a non-factual statement and instead argue hypothetical/theory/fantasy.

If a current tax rate raises $200 billion and we cut that rate in half, tax payers should save $100 billion.
Why don't you tell me how much they'll save?


It's not something I think...it's something that I accept because it's fact.

It's a fact that more money in peoples hands doesn't increase demand? Where do you get your facts? LOL!

We saw it very plainly during Bush the Dumber. Income taxes were cut, yet household debt doubled.

So where is your proof that the cuts didn't increase demand?

So how did the tax cut result in more money in the hands of people if those people all went into debt?

People go into debt to consume more, durr........

The previous recession started in 1981, again, during Reagan.

And how long should we go between recessions?

So how could the central premise of your argument hold water since there was a recession that started while tax rates on the top were at historical lows?

Did someone say a tax cut would prevent all future recessions?
Who?
When?

 

[danielpalos]

I don't care. Your "economists" think the peak is 50%-75% Awesome. I think a top rate of 25% is plenty.

But it's not the peak, is it? Oh wait, you are pleading ignorance of your own argument...I forgot.

But it's not the peak, is it?

I didn't say it was.

I believe in tax cuts, even if we're already below the peak Laffer Rate.

This is why, nobody should take the right wing seriously about economics.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

By why would they create a new business, or expand one Those rich people are always plotting to make more money. if there's no increase in their revenues? When has a large tax cut resulted in no increase in revenues, ever?

2001, 2002, 2003, 2004. Revenue for all four of those years was below revenue in 2000. So the tax cuts decreased revenues for four consecutive years below the level revenues were at the year prior to the tax cut.

You can see it right here.

What you don't see happen, is revenues declining when taxes are raised. In fact, you see revenues growing. So if raising taxes creates more revenues, cutting taxes reduces them. Because, math.

You are still clinging to the fantasy that magically somehow, "if you build it, they will come". That may work on ghostly ballplayers, but it doesn't work in reality.

Yeah, that only works in the movies. And every time we cut taxes.

So we cut taxes in 2001. The result? A surplus erased into record deficits, revenue below the previous level for four consecutive years, 460,000 jobs lost, 1.76% growth, and a doubling of the household debt. What you didn't see? Increased growth. Job growth. Wage growth. Savings growth (except among the wealthy and only at a 4% rate). So what exactly was built and who came to it?

Which has been never.Except for the 20s, 60s, 80s, 00s.......

Dear God, do we really have to rehash this again?

The 20's laissez-faire policies lead to the largest income gap ever (except for the one that currently exists) and the market crash that wiped out all those gains overnight. The 1960's saw increased revenues as a result of dramatic increases in federal spending; 25% from 1961-1963 and 50% from 1964-1968. The 80's was due entirely to the Fed lowering interest rates beginning in 1982, and Congress increasing spending for 1983. You said yourself the Reagan recession ended in November 1982, even though the unemployment rate would peak in December 1982 and the tax cut took effect in January 1982. And the 00's, see above. I already dissected those.

Increased savings is a positive, not a negative. First of all, NO IT ISN'T. Wow!

And this is precisely why your economy policies always fail...because you don't know the first thing about how our economy operates. We are a consumer economy...70% of our economy is based on consumer spending. If consumers ratchet back spending in order to save (actually, more likely to pay down debts they incurred during Bush the Dumber and Reagan) then what happens to consumer spending? It declines. And what happens then? The economy contracts. And what do we call it when an economy contracts? A recession. The whole premise of your bullshit argument is that cutting taxes lets business expand, but business can expand without a tax cut, as they have been doing since Obama. So since corporate profits are at all time highs, since corporate cash-on-hand is at all-time highs, since the market is at all-time highs, and since we're at full employment, explain to me how a tax cut will solve for a problem that doesn't exist?

Rich people are not investing all the time, and when they do, they're not investing here in the US. It's true, morons like Obama make it harder to invest here.

How so? Conservatives have controlled the House since 2011, and the House and Senate since 2015. Conservatives also control a majority of states since 2011 too. So if it's hard to invest here, it's only because you guys made it so. With your terrible economics and questionable accounting. BTW - it's not hard to invest here at all. They just choose not to because it's a globalized economy, and global profits mean way more now than they did 17 years ago.

Which is why it's just a theory and not reality. Businesses don't borrow money from banks? Is that your claim?

If a business isn't increasing revenues, no bank is going to loan that business money...unless it's a Russian bank and you're Donald Trump. Do you think banks just hand out loans to businesses willy-nilly? It doesn't seem like you have a ton of experience in this subject. Any loan officer will tell you, unless you can show your revenues increasing (thus showing growth), you ain't getting another dime from that bank no matter how much you may want it or how much faith you have.

Well, they didn't create jobs or growth during Bush the Dumber. They did both, under Bush and Reagan.

Bush lost net 460,000 private sector jobs after 8 years.

Reagan had a 10.8% unemployment rate more than a year after his tax cuts were passed. Then he raised taxes 11 times and increased defense spending. Tax cuts didn't create shit. All they did was create deficits and debt. Same thing is happening in Kansas right now.

Yeah, and it didn't really work. Obama's economy didn't start cooking until after he let the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the wealthy at the end of 2012. Explain why the Obama tax hikes increased growth.

Simple; increased federal revenues reduced the deficit significantly which gave long-term planners optimism when making their LRPs. Let's also not forget that at the time, you people were saying if the Bush Tax Cuts on the rich were to expire, there would be job loss, a market crash, and a recession. Wrong, wrong, wrong. So if you were wrong then, why would you be right now?

If federal spending is cut, then states have to make up for the gap. When was federal spending cut?

Sequestration, for starters. Remember? It was the thing you wanted because you claimed austerity was the only way to get out of the recession you clowns got us into. A claim, by the way, that was based on a lie; the Rogoff-Reinhart "Growth in the Time of Debt" paper thingy that Conservatives were using as their holy bible as they argued for Sequestration. You remember that, right? What was the big hullabaloo about that paper? Oh right, it was complete and utter bullshit. So we based policy on what was a deliberate undertaking by shady Conservatives to promote austerity when it was unnecessary to do so.

In most cases, red states just raid the welfare block grant to plug their deficits.
Why is the federal government giving grants to the states?

Because that's how Conservatives reformed welfare in 1996. They did it that way specifically so they could use the block grant to pay for their tax cuts, instead of people getting welfare directly from the Feds. So Conservatives quite literally use welfare to fund their economic and fiscal schemes. Conservatism is, and always has been a welfare scheme for the wealthy.

2001, 2002, 2003, 2004. Revenue for all four of those years was below revenue in 2000.

A tax cut results in more revenue for business.
You said businesses won't expand without increased revenue.....business revenue, not government revenue.

And this is precisely why your economy policies always fail...because you don't know the first thing about how our economy operates.

Right, you think if you spend less than 100% of your income, less than 110%, less than 120%, you're being irresponsible and hurting the economy.
Because you're an idiot.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

By why would they create a new business, or expand one Those rich people are always plotting to make more money. if there's no increase in their revenues? When has a large tax cut resulted in no increase in revenues, ever?

2001, 2002, 2003, 2004. Revenue for all four of those years was below revenue in 2000. So the tax cuts decreased revenues for four consecutive years below the level revenues were at the year prior to the tax cut.

You can see it right here.

What you don't see happen, is revenues declining when taxes are raised. In fact, you see revenues growing. So if raising taxes creates more revenues, cutting taxes reduces them. Because, math.

You are still clinging to the fantasy that magically somehow, "if you build it, they will come". That may work on ghostly ballplayers, but it doesn't work in reality.

Yeah, that only works in the movies. And every time we cut taxes.

So we cut taxes in 2001. The result? A surplus erased into record deficits, revenue below the previous level for four consecutive years, 460,000 jobs lost, 1.76% growth, and a doubling of the household debt. What you didn't see? Increased growth. Job growth. Wage growth. Savings growth (except among the wealthy and only at a 4% rate). So what exactly was built and who came to it?

Which has been never.Except for the 20s, 60s, 80s, 00s.......

Dear God, do we really have to rehash this again?

The 20's laissez-faire policies lead to the largest income gap ever (except for the one that currently exists) and the market crash that wiped out all those gains overnight. The 1960's saw increased revenues as a result of dramatic increases in federal spending; 25% from 1961-1963 and 50% from 1964-1968. The 80's was due entirely to the Fed lowering interest rates beginning in 1982, and Congress increasing spending for 1983. You said yourself the Reagan recession ended in November 1982, even though the unemployment rate would peak in December 1982 and the tax cut took effect in January 1982. And the 00's, see above. I already dissected those.

Increased savings is a positive, not a negative. First of all, NO IT ISN'T. Wow!

And this is precisely why your economy policies always fail...because you don't know the first thing about how our economy operates. We are a consumer economy...70% of our economy is based on consumer spending. If consumers ratchet back spending in order to save (actually, more likely to pay down debts they incurred during Bush the Dumber and Reagan) then what happens to consumer spending? It declines. And what happens then? The economy contracts. And what do we call it when an economy contracts? A recession. The whole premise of your bullshit argument is that cutting taxes lets business expand, but business can expand without a tax cut, as they have been doing since Obama. So since corporate profits are at all time highs, since corporate cash-on-hand is at all-time highs, since the market is at all-time highs, and since we're at full employment, explain to me how a tax cut will solve for a problem that doesn't exist?

Rich people are not investing all the time, and when they do, they're not investing here in the US. It's true, morons like Obama make it harder to invest here.

How so? Conservatives have controlled the House since 2011, and the House and Senate since 2015. Conservatives also control a majority of states since 2011 too. So if it's hard to invest here, it's only because you guys made it so. With your terrible economics and questionable accounting. BTW - it's not hard to invest here at all. They just choose not to because it's a globalized economy, and global profits mean way more now than they did 17 years ago.

Which is why it's just a theory and not reality. Businesses don't borrow money from banks? Is that your claim?

If a business isn't increasing revenues, no bank is going to loan that business money...unless it's a Russian bank and you're Donald Trump. Do you think banks just hand out loans to businesses willy-nilly? It doesn't seem like you have a ton of experience in this subject. Any loan officer will tell you, unless you can show your revenues increasing (thus showing growth), you ain't getting another dime from that bank no matter how much you may want it or how much faith you have.

Well, they didn't create jobs or growth during Bush the Dumber. They did both, under Bush and Reagan.

Bush lost net 460,000 private sector jobs after 8 years.

Reagan had a 10.8% unemployment rate more than a year after his tax cuts were passed. Then he raised taxes 11 times and increased defense spending. Tax cuts didn't create shit. All they did was create deficits and debt. Same thing is happening in Kansas right now.

Yeah, and it didn't really work. Obama's economy didn't start cooking until after he let the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the wealthy at the end of 2012. Explain why the Obama tax hikes increased growth.

Simple; increased federal revenues reduced the deficit significantly which gave long-term planners optimism when making their LRPs. Let's also not forget that at the time, you people were saying if the Bush Tax Cuts on the rich were to expire, there would be job loss, a market crash, and a recession. Wrong, wrong, wrong. So if you were wrong then, why would you be right now?

If federal spending is cut, then states have to make up for the gap. When was federal spending cut?

Sequestration, for starters. Remember? It was the thing you wanted because you claimed austerity was the only way to get out of the recession you clowns got us into. A claim, by the way, that was based on a lie; the Rogoff-Reinhart "Growth in the Time of Debt" paper thingy that Conservatives were using as their holy bible as they argued for Sequestration. You remember that, right? What was the big hullabaloo about that paper? Oh right, it was complete and utter bullshit. So we based policy on what was a deliberate undertaking by shady Conservatives to promote austerity when it was unnecessary to do so.

In most cases, red states just raid the welfare block grant to plug their deficits.
Why is the federal government giving grants to the states?

Because that's how Conservatives reformed welfare in 1996. They did it that way specifically so they could use the block grant to pay for their tax cuts, instead of people getting welfare directly from the Feds. So Conservatives quite literally use welfare to fund their economic and fiscal schemes. Conservatism is, and always has been a welfare scheme for the wealthy.

BTW - it's not hard to invest here at all. They just choose not to because it's a globalized economy, and global profits mean way more now than they did 17 years ago.

You're making it sound like investing outside the US is more profitable.

If a business isn't increasing revenues, no bank is going to loan that business money...

And if a large tax cut increases revenues, there will be plenty of lending.

Bush lost net 460,000 private sector jobs after 8 years.

The growth was before then.

Simple; increased federal revenues reduced the deficit significantly which gave long-term planners optimism when making their LRPs.

Why does that increase optimism?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't care. Your "economists" think the peak is 50%-75% Awesome. I think a top rate of 25% is plenty.

But it's not the peak, is it? Oh wait, you are pleading ignorance of your own argument...I forgot.

But it's not the peak, is it?

I didn't say it was.

I believe in tax cuts, even if we're already below the peak Laffer Rate.

This is why, nobody should take the right wing seriously about economics.

Don't worry, no one takes your welfare for stoners plan seriously.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

typical liberal lie. The top 1% now pay 40% of all income tax while they paid only 20% during Reagan. This is a total rip off of the most productive people in our society!

You're the ones who created this situation

wrong of course libertarians would be for everyone paying equally for a can of soup in super market and for govt.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Conservatism is, and always has been a welfare scheme for the wealthy.

actually conservatives support capitalism in general wherein there is no welfare for anybody. Do you understand. When Clinton went along with Newt and ended welfare as we know it by making it workfare half of his cabinet walked out . Do you understand?

 

[danielpalos]

I don't care. Your "economists" think the peak is 50%-75% Awesome. I think a top rate of 25% is plenty.

But it's not the peak, is it? Oh wait, you are pleading ignorance of your own argument...I forgot.

But it's not the peak, is it?

I didn't say it was.

I believe in tax cuts, even if we're already below the peak Laffer Rate.

This is why, nobody should take the right wing seriously about economics.

Don't worry, no one takes your welfare for stoners plan seriously.

Coming from You, that means only the clueless and the Causeless.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't care. Your "economists" think the peak is 50%-75% Awesome. I think a top rate of 25% is plenty.

But it's not the peak, is it? Oh wait, you are pleading ignorance of your own argument...I forgot.

But it's not the peak, is it?

I didn't say it was.

I believe in tax cuts, even if we're already below the peak Laffer Rate.

This is why, nobody should take the right wing seriously about economics.

Don't worry, no one takes your welfare for stoners plan seriously.

Coming from You, that means only the clueless and the Causeless.

Dude!

 

[The Derp]

wrong of course libertarians would be for everyone paying equally for a can of soup in super market and for govt.

"Libertarians" (is that what you're calling yourself now?) are like housecats; wholly convinced of their own independence, yet entirely dependent on others.

 

[The Derp]

actually conservatives support capitalism in general wherein there is no welfare for anybody. Do you understand. When Clinton went along with Newt and ended welfare as we know it by making it workfare half of his cabinet walked out . Do you understand?

Conservatives don't even know what capitalism is.

 

[The Derp]

A tax cut results in more revenue for business.

NO IT DOESN'T. It results in more profit, because you pay taxes on profit, not revenues. Revenues are pre-tax, and that is what is used to determine if your business is growing or not.

You said businesses won't expand without increased revenue.....business revenue, not government revenue.

So this post of yours clues everyone here into how much of a bullshitter you actually are. Business won't expand without increased revenue, nor will a business expand if just its profits increase. It is possible for a business to increase profits without increasing revenue. That is done by cutting expenses. And what is the biggest expense in any business' budget? Labor. So that's why companies lay people off, even though they make a profit.

Right, you think if you spend less than 100% of your income, less than 110%, less than 120%, you're being irresponsible and hurting the economy. Because you're an idiot.

No, what I said was that if everyone did that at the same time, then you would be hurting the economy. Also, if you remove $1T or so of government discretionary spending out of the economy, you have to replace it with spending from somewhere else, otherwise the economy contracts. The part Conservatives never figure out is how to replace the drop in government demand. You pretend that the private sector will magically, somehow, pick up the slack caused by the drop in spending that the government does. But that is, of course, a fantasy because the government spends money on things the private sector will not or cannot because it is not feasible for them to do so.

The only idiot here is the person who thinks "if you build it, they will come" is a valid economic policy.