Tax cuts do not cost anything. Nor do they need to be "paid for"

[bripat9643]

[Q


Trump is including a huge increase in defense spending in his budget.

We need to stop doling out welfare both domestic and foreign, don't you think?

However, since you raised the issue your Boy was at war every day of his administration, including fighting the war in Iraq for three years, bombing Libya when they were no threat to us and escalating the war in Afghanistan so you Moon Bats have no credibility bitching about defense spending.

Since I opposed every one of those actions,

you're today's idiot.

Sure you did, twinkle toes. We all know you sucked Obama's dick and defended everything he did. That's your modus operandi.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Tax cuts increase tax receipts anyway, so this is a moot point.

Hogwash!
Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and 1982 and revenue went DOWN in 1981 and 1982. Reagan raised taxes in 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 and revenue increased every year.

When the dishonest Right say Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and revenue doubled by 1989, and that is exactly how they crafted their lie to the ignorant, they dishonestly leave out all the tax increases after 1982.

Here is the GOP crafted lie as told by your MessiahRushie:

September 21, 2015
RUSH: In 1981 Reagan takes office, top marginal rate 70%. The amount of revenue collected via the tax code is about a half a trillion dollars. Eight years Reagan leaves. The top rate’s down to 28% from 70, and the amount of money collected from the tax code’s almost doubled to 900 some odd billion dollars by reducing the rates.

The right wing is trying to convince us that Reagan era tax cuts exclusively produced increases in tax receipts for the government.

Whatever the Reagan tax cuts did, it wasn't enough to balance the budget as Reagan promised.

That's because Dims kept massively increasing spending on social programs.

So Reagan couldn't stop them?

 

[bripat9643]

"There's no such thing as taxes being too low. They would have to be negative."

As they are for concentrated corporate wealth and power aa well as the substantial people.

Marxist snowflake propaganda.

When they really know they have nothing; labels.

Privatized gains versus socialized losses for the Wall Street bankster class
Internalized profit versus externalized risk and expense for the "job creator" class
Socialism for the aristocracy versus laissez-faire capitalism for the masses

You spelled out the Democrat economic program, not the Republican.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[Q


Trump is including a huge increase in defense spending in his budget.

We need to stop doling out welfare both domestic and foreign, don't you think?

However, since you raised the issue your Boy was at war every day of his administration, including fighting the war in Iraq for three years, bombing Libya when they were no threat to us and escalating the war in Afghanistan so you Moon Bats have no credibility bitching about defense spending.

Since I opposed every one of those actions,

you're today's idiot.

Sure you did, twinkle toes. We all know you sucked Obama's dick and defended everything he did. That's your modus operandi.

You lie, because you're stupid.

 

[bripat9643]

"There's no such thing as taxes being too low. They would have to be negative."

As they are for concentrated corporate wealth and power aa well as the substantial people.

Marxist snowflake propaganda.

Since you're always yapping about the Constitution, how would you protect and enforce the mandates of the Constitution with tax revenues of ZERO?

Since the cost of that would be about 10% of what the government now spends, it would be very easy. User fees and voluntary contributions.

 

[bripat9643]

[Q


Trump is including a huge increase in defense spending in his budget.

We need to stop doling out welfare both domestic and foreign, don't you think?

However, since you raised the issue your Boy was at war every day of his administration, including fighting the war in Iraq for three years, bombing Libya when they were no threat to us and escalating the war in Afghanistan so you Moon Bats have no credibility bitching about defense spending.

Since I opposed every one of those actions,

you're today's idiot.

Sure you did, twinkle toes. We all know you sucked Obama's dick and defended everything he did. That's your modus operandi.

You lie, because you're stupid.

ROFL! That was the most pathetic retort posted in this forum in the last month.

 

[Fenton Lum]

"There's no such thing as taxes being too low. They would have to be negative."

As they are for concentrated corporate wealth and power aa well as the substantial people.

Marxist snowflake propaganda.

When they really know they have nothing; labels.

Privatized gains versus socialized losses for the Wall Street bankster class
Internalized profit versus externalized risk and expense for the "job creator" class
Socialism for the aristocracy versus laissez-faire capitalism for the masses

You spelled out the Democrat economic program, not the Republican.

You are one of those sad mental dwarfs who cannot see past the ruse of a political system that professes to be built upon a "two" party system, yet pursues the same course regardless of who’s “in power”. Goldman Sachs is always all up in that white house and Wall Street gets bailed out regardless - even in the face of 90% public opposition.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Tax cuts increase tax receipts anyway, so this is a moot point.

Hogwash!
Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and 1982 and revenue went DOWN in 1981 and 1982. Reagan raised taxes in 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 and revenue increased every year.

When the dishonest Right say Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and revenue doubled by 1989, and that is exactly how they crafted their lie to the ignorant, they dishonestly leave out all the tax increases after 1982.

Here is the GOP crafted lie as told by your MessiahRushie:

September 21, 2015
RUSH: In 1981 Reagan takes office, top marginal rate 70%. The amount of revenue collected via the tax code is about a half a trillion dollars. Eight years Reagan leaves. The top rate’s down to 28% from 70, and the amount of money collected from the tax code’s almost doubled to 900 some odd billion dollars by reducing the rates.

The right wing is trying to convince us that Reagan era tax cuts exclusively produced increases in tax receipts for the government.

Whatever the Reagan tax cuts did, it wasn't enough to balance the budget as Reagan promised.

That's because Dims kept massively increasing spending on social programs.

Reagan saved Social Security with a plan that included tax increases. Reagan expanded Medicaid. Reagan expanded Medicare.

 

[bripat9643]

"There's no such thing as taxes being too low. They would have to be negative."

As they are for concentrated corporate wealth and power aa well as the substantial people.

Marxist snowflake propaganda.

When they really know they have nothing; labels.

Privatized gains versus socialized losses for the Wall Street bankster class
Internalized profit versus externalized risk and expense for the "job creator" class
Socialism for the aristocracy versus laissez-faire capitalism for the masses

You spelled out the Democrat economic program, not the Republican.

You are one of those sad mental dwarfs who cannot see past the ruse of a political system that professes to be built upon a "two" party system, yet pursues the same course regardless of who’s “in power”. Goldman Sachs is always all up in that white house and Wall Street gets bailed out regardless - even in the face of 90% public opposition.

The claim that Republicans are no different than Democrats is obviously a fiction. Would we have anything like Obamacare if a Republican had been elected with a filibuster proof majority in the Senate? Not a chance.

 

[bripat9643]

Tax cuts increase tax receipts anyway, so this is a moot point.

Hogwash!
Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and 1982 and revenue went DOWN in 1981 and 1982. Reagan raised taxes in 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 and revenue increased every year.

When the dishonest Right say Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and revenue doubled by 1989, and that is exactly how they crafted their lie to the ignorant, they dishonestly leave out all the tax increases after 1982.

Here is the GOP crafted lie as told by your MessiahRushie:

September 21, 2015
RUSH: In 1981 Reagan takes office, top marginal rate 70%. The amount of revenue collected via the tax code is about a half a trillion dollars. Eight years Reagan leaves. The top rate’s down to 28% from 70, and the amount of money collected from the tax code’s almost doubled to 900 some odd billion dollars by reducing the rates.

The right wing is trying to convince us that Reagan era tax cuts exclusively produced increases in tax receipts for the government.

Whatever the Reagan tax cuts did, it wasn't enough to balance the budget as Reagan promised.

That's because Dims kept massively increasing spending on social programs.

Reagan saved Social Security with a plan that included tax increases. Reagan expanded Medicaid. Reagan expanded Medicare.

He did increase FICA taxes, but I don't recall him increasing Medicare or Medicaid benefits.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[Q


Trump is including a huge increase in defense spending in his budget.

We need to stop doling out welfare both domestic and foreign, don't you think?

However, since you raised the issue your Boy was at war every day of his administration, including fighting the war in Iraq for three years, bombing Libya when they were no threat to us and escalating the war in Afghanistan so you Moon Bats have no credibility bitching about defense spending.

Since I opposed every one of those actions,

you're today's idiot.

Sure you did, twinkle toes. We all know you sucked Obama's dick and defended everything he did. That's your modus operandi.

You lie, because you're stupid.

ROFL! That was the most pathetic retort posted in this forum in the last month.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Fenton Lum]

"There's no such thing as taxes being too low. They would have to be negative."

As they are for concentrated corporate wealth and power aa well as the substantial people.

Marxist snowflake propaganda.

When they really know they have nothing; labels.

Privatized gains versus socialized losses for the Wall Street bankster class
Internalized profit versus externalized risk and expense for the "job creator" class
Socialism for the aristocracy versus laissez-faire capitalism for the masses

You spelled out the Democrat economic program, not the Republican.

You are one of those sad mental dwarfs who cannot see past the ruse of a political system that professes to be built upon a "two" party system, yet pursues the same course regardless of who’s “in power”. Goldman Sachs is always all up in that white house and Wall Street gets bailed out regardless - even in the face of 90% public opposition.

The claim that Republicans are no different than Democrats is obviously a fiction. Would we have anything like Obamacare if a Republican had been elected with a filibuster proof majority in the Senate? Not a chance.

You're aware that entire approach to "healthcare" in america came from the Heritage Foundation, yeah?

Jesus son, you are sooooooooooooooooooo lost in illusion.

 

[Fenton Lum]

We need to stop doling out welfare both domestic and foreign, don't you think?

However, since you raised the issue your Boy was at war every day of his administration, including fighting the war in Iraq for three years, bombing Libya when they were no threat to us and escalating the war in Afghanistan so you Moon Bats have no credibility bitching about defense spending.

Since I opposed every one of those actions,

you're today's idiot.

Sure you did, twinkle toes. We all know you sucked Obama's dick and defended everything he did. That's your modus operandi.

You lie, because you're stupid.

ROFL! That was the most pathetic retort posted in this forum in the last month.

Prove me wrong.

Oh this oughtta be good .....

 

[bripat9643]

We need to stop doling out welfare both domestic and foreign, don't you think?

However, since you raised the issue your Boy was at war every day of his administration, including fighting the war in Iraq for three years, bombing Libya when they were no threat to us and escalating the war in Afghanistan so you Moon Bats have no credibility bitching about defense spending.

Since I opposed every one of those actions,

you're today's idiot.

Sure you did, twinkle toes. We all know you sucked Obama's dick and defended everything he did. That's your modus operandi.

You lie, because you're stupid.

ROFL! That was the most pathetic retort posted in this forum in the last month.

Prove me wrong.

I do that every time I post, moron.

 

[bripat9643]

Marxist snowflake propaganda.

When they really know they have nothing; labels.

Privatized gains versus socialized losses for the Wall Street bankster class
Internalized profit versus externalized risk and expense for the "job creator" class
Socialism for the aristocracy versus laissez-faire capitalism for the masses

You spelled out the Democrat economic program, not the Republican.

You are one of those sad mental dwarfs who cannot see past the ruse of a political system that professes to be built upon a "two" party system, yet pursues the same course regardless of who’s “in power”. Goldman Sachs is always all up in that white house and Wall Street gets bailed out regardless - even in the face of 90% public opposition.

The claim that Republicans are no different than Democrats is obviously a fiction. Would we have anything like Obamacare if a Republican had been elected with a filibuster proof majority in the Senate? Not a chance.

You're aware that entire approach to "healthcare" in america came from the Heritage Foundation, yeah?

Jesus son, you are sooooooooooooooooooo lost in illusion.

That's a leftwing fiction. They took a few things from the Heritage plan, mostly the mandate, which was the worse thing about it, but the rest Is the typical Democrat regulatory nightmare. Heritage proposed a free market in healthcare, other than the mandate. You snowflakes like to keep blaming this fiasco on Heritage, but it's a total fucking lie.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Ah, a supply-side True Believer.

Supply side policies always fail, of course, because they're fantasy-based. In their mythical world, cutting taxes on rich people and leaving less for the middle class means rich people will create jobs, and eventually it will trickle back down on everyone else.

Not what happens, of course. The rich people just pocket the money, so the middle class pays more and gets nothing.

First, there's no shortage of investment capital, so having more investment capital available doesn't do anything.

Second, cutting taxes on the rich doesn't actually create make more capital. Tax cuts have to be paid for by selling T-bills, which take the money that the rich saved in tax cuts right back out of the economy.

And third, economies are demand driven, not supply driven. If there's demand for products from the middle class, then the supply will follow. Someone will want to make money satisfying that demand. That's capitalism. It builds up from the bottom.

Not what happens, of course. The rich people just pocket the money, so the middle class pays more and gets nothing.

First, there's no shortage of investment capital, so having more investment capital available doesn't do anything.

Good points. There needs to be a balance between investment capital and consumer capital. There is a circle of money flow between the two. If everything is balanced, there is a high velocity of money and the economy prospers. If the money collects in one place, (usually at the top) that pinches off the velocity of money and the economy falters. Tax policies should reflect this reality.

You can throw all the ideology you want at this problem but that doesn't matter. the economy will falter.

 

[Boss]

By the way, notice how dishonest the Right-wing Heritage Foundation is with their chart! They use 1980 as the baseline even though they admit that the 5% 1981 tax cut was RETROACTIVE, which means that the revenue from 1981 was using the Carter tax rates minus 5%. so the real baseline should have been the 1981 revenue plus 5% which also means that the lost revenue from the Reagan tax cuts was even greater!!!

I don't trust your data. Mine is from the US Treasury department. I have no idea who made this chart. You claim it's Heritage Foundation... I sincerely doubt that.

Your OWN link shows the same facts, just using different constant dollars, 1996 for my data and 2009 for your data.

Man up and admit your Right-wing sources made a SUCKER out of you, as they ALWAYS do!

Well no.. $1.3 trillion is less than $1.5 trillion. Man up and admit your a mathematical illiterate dimwit.

 

[P F Tinmore]

"There's no such thing as taxes being too low. They would have to be negative."

As they are for concentrated corporate wealth and power aa well as the substantial people.

Marxist snowflake propaganda.

When they really know they have nothing; labels.

Privatized gains versus socialized losses for the Wall Street bankster class
Internalized profit versus externalized risk and expense for the "job creator" class
Socialism for the aristocracy versus laissez-faire capitalism for the masses

You spelled out the Democrat economic program, not the Republican.

You are one of those sad mental dwarfs who cannot see past the ruse of a political system that professes to be built upon a "two" party system, yet pursues the same course regardless of who’s “in power”. Goldman Sachs is always all up in that white house and Wall Street gets bailed out regardless - even in the face of 90% public opposition.

The claim that Republicans are no different than Democrats is obviously a fiction. Would we have anything like Obamacare if a Republican had been elected with a filibuster proof majority in the Senate? Not a chance.

Nobody wanted Obamacare. The liberals wanted single payer and the conservatives wanted poor people to die in the street.

 

[Darkwind]

3 steps to a balanced budget in 4 short years and a surplus in year 5.

1) Freeze Spending.
2) Freeze Spending
3) Freeze Spending.

FYI-
Spending has been frozen since the sequester, back in 2013..... still no balanced budget....

Spending is never frozen as long as baseline budgeting remains in effect.

However, he is wrong about freezing spending. We need to make actual reductions in spending. As in, "The amount of money you spent last year will be larger than the amount you will be permitted to spend this year.

 

[Darkwind]

Marxist snowflake propaganda.

When they really know they have nothing; labels.

Privatized gains versus socialized losses for the Wall Street bankster class
Internalized profit versus externalized risk and expense for the "job creator" class
Socialism for the aristocracy versus laissez-faire capitalism for the masses

You spelled out the Democrat economic program, not the Republican.

You are one of those sad mental dwarfs who cannot see past the ruse of a political system that professes to be built upon a "two" party system, yet pursues the same course regardless of who’s “in power”. Goldman Sachs is always all up in that white house and Wall Street gets bailed out regardless - even in the face of 90% public opposition.

The claim that Republicans are no different than Democrats is obviously a fiction. Would we have anything like Obamacare if a Republican had been elected with a filibuster proof majority in the Senate? Not a chance.

Nobody wanted Obamacare. The liberals wanted single payer and the conservatives wanted poor people to die in the street.

This is why you have been losing elections all across the country. Lies like these.