Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
tax cuts do not cost anythingTax cuts do not have to pay for themselves since they cost nothing to begin with
22% of GDP ...
... Ouch!
I can't make it any simpler than that
They might cost a lot. Look at the last tax cuts along with an expensive war. They cost jobs, they cost people's homes, they cost far too much.
the tax cut didn't cost anything.
the spending is responsible
Again, it cost. Just because you don't want this to be so, doesn't make it so.
only if you assume all government spending is sacrosanctno it doesn'ttax cuts do not cost anything
I can't make it any simpler than that
They might cost a lot. Look at the last tax cuts along with an expensive war. They cost jobs, they cost people's homes, they cost far too much.
the tax cut didn't cost anything.
the spending is responsible
A tax cut costs billions in borrowing.
the borrowing is done to support SPENDING
But cutting the taxes means the borrowing goes up.
tax cuts do not cost anything22% of GDP ...
... Ouch!
I can't make it any simpler than that
They might cost a lot. Look at the last tax cuts along with an expensive war. They cost jobs, they cost people's homes, they cost far too much.
the tax cut didn't cost anything.
the spending is responsible
Again, it cost. Just because you don't want this to be so, doesn't make it so.
it costs nothing to reduce revenue
it is the only thing in this world that is actually free
the only thing that incurs cost is spending
the only thing that incurs deficits is spending in excess of revenue
tax cuts do not cost anything
I can't make it any simpler than that
They might cost a lot. Look at the last tax cuts along with an expensive war. They cost jobs, they cost people's homes, they cost far too much.
the tax cut didn't cost anything.
the spending is responsible
Again, it cost. Just because you don't want this to be so, doesn't make it so.
it costs nothing to reduce revenue
it is the only thing in this world that is actually free
the only thing that incurs cost is spending
the only thing that incurs deficits is spending in excess of revenue
We pay around 200 billion a year in interest on the debt. That is the cost of not collecting enough revenue to match expenditures.
They might cost a lot. Look at the last tax cuts along with an expensive war. They cost jobs, they cost people's homes, they cost far too much.
the tax cut didn't cost anything.
the spending is responsible
Again, it cost. Just because you don't want this to be so, doesn't make it so.
it costs nothing to reduce revenue
it is the only thing in this world that is actually free
the only thing that incurs cost is spending
the only thing that incurs deficits is spending in excess of revenue
We pay around 200 billion a year in interest on the debt. That is the cost of not collecting enough revenue to match expenditures.
and how does that change the FACT that only spending in excess of revenue creates deficits?
you are another who makes the assumption that all government spending is somehow sacred
the tax cut didn't cost anything.
the spending is responsible
Again, it cost. Just because you don't want this to be so, doesn't make it so.
it costs nothing to reduce revenue
it is the only thing in this world that is actually free
the only thing that incurs cost is spending
the only thing that incurs deficits is spending in excess of revenue
We pay around 200 billion a year in interest on the debt. That is the cost of not collecting enough revenue to match expenditures.
and how does that change the FACT that only spending in excess of revenue creates deficits?
you are another who makes the assumption that all government spending is somehow sacred
because the gap between revenues and spending can be closed one of three ways,
1. cut spending down to your revenue level 2. raise revenues by taxation up to your spending level, or.
3. do some combination of both.
You are fixated on the sacredness of only doing number 1.
tax cuts do not cost anything22% of GDP ...
... Ouch!
I can't make it any simpler than that
They might cost a lot. Look at the last tax cuts along with an expensive war. They cost jobs, they cost people's homes, they cost far too much.
the tax cut didn't cost anything.
the spending is responsible
Again, it cost. Just because you don't want this to be so, doesn't make it so.
it costs nothing to reduce revenue
it is the only thing in this world that is actually free
the only thing that incurs cost is spending
the only thing that incurs deficits is spending in excess of revenue
only if you assume all government spending is sacrosanctno it doesn'tThey might cost a lot. Look at the last tax cuts along with an expensive war. They cost jobs, they cost people's homes, they cost far too much.
the tax cut didn't cost anything.
the spending is responsible
A tax cut costs billions in borrowing.
the borrowing is done to support SPENDING
But cutting the taxes means the borrowing goes up.
I don't make that assumption
Owners Aren't EarnersCollectivism always appeals to the weak mind... a fact you just proved.The Wall Street KremlinI certainly don't think the federal government has a right to disperse or redistribute wealth whatsoever.Walking Tall by Walking All Over People on Your Way UpWell, I grew up with nothing on the Indian reservation; that did not have any influence on stopping me from making something out of my life.Familyism is even more primitive than tribalism. You richlovers want their Masters' spawn to dominate the rest of us in the name of family values. You're so simple-minded that you think the aristocrats can do anything they want and that we peasants cannot use our government to put a check on their abuses. The pampered snobs selfishly claim they have a right to their Daddy's money, but you pathetic bootlickers make it look like a society based on birth and not worth is the natural order of things.
How does getting it automatically mean you deserve your success? Status quo is static, not dynamic. Whatever is doesn't mean that's what it is supposed to be.
You became a bootlicking Buttboy for the Bosses. Why would the rich let anyone talented compete with their sons? You class-climbed the ladder built by them in a way to make sure you wouldn't give them any trouble. All you ever dreamed of is getting accepted into the Country Club, being patted on the head by the Preppies, and being told, "We forgive you for not being born rich."
Sacrifice has no merit; it is merely brownnosing. Most of all, you believe you have a right to set up your sons (and now daughters) halfway to the finish line instead of telling them to do it the way you did. Therefore, you aren't really proud of the way you did it and don't deserve any rational person's respect.
By GUBMINT!! you Selfists mean the 99%, whose productive value is arbitrarily pre-distributed by the 1% to itself. But your clique owns the mind-control monopoly that intimidates people into believing that the GUBMINT!!! is some outside demon that oppresses all 100% of us, as if we were occupied by a foreign power.
But we,the people, not you the Plutes, own the entire playing field for the next generation and no one has the right to tilt it just because "it's his money." That doesn't allow him to do anything anti-social, which amounts to bribing the referees so his son's mediocre prep school team always wins.
tax cuts do not cost anything
I can't make it any simpler than that
They might cost a lot. Look at the last tax cuts along with an expensive war. They cost jobs, they cost people's homes, they cost far too much.
the tax cut didn't cost anything.
the spending is responsible
Again, it cost. Just because you don't want this to be so, doesn't make it so.
it costs nothing to reduce revenue
it is the only thing in this world that is actually free
the only thing that incurs cost is spending
the only thing that incurs deficits is spending in excess of revenue
The problem is, if you owe money, it costs you money. You've already borrowed the money. You're not borrowing it a second time, but it's costing you. If you have a loan, it costs you. You could pay it back, and then it won't cost you, but then you decide to earn less money and reduce the amount you pay back. It's costing you.
only if you assume all government spending is sacrosanctno it doesn'tthe tax cut didn't cost anything.
the spending is responsible
A tax cut costs billions in borrowing.
the borrowing is done to support SPENDING
But cutting the taxes means the borrowing goes up.
I don't make that assumption
No, not at all. You're trying to twist this around, it's not happening.
/---- Written by left wingers. Pres Reagan's tax cut brought in more revenue
How convenient of you to leave out 2010 when Obama's deficit was $1.652 trillion.2009 deficit (submitted by Bush in 2008) - 1300 Billion.
2016 deficit - 587 billion
That's right dimwit - $1.652 trillion. Does that look like a "cut" deficit to you?
Year #1
Bush (2002) $421 billion
Obama (2010) $1.652 trillion
Year #7
Bush (2008) $1.017 trillion
Obama (2016) $1.423 trillion
Well that was short-lived! Once again, Obama has a higher deficit than Bush. Does that sound like a "reduction" to you, liar?
Which President Added Most to the U.S. Debt?
/---- Written by left wingers. Pres Reagan's tax cut brought in more revenue
No modern day president has had a sustained economic growth of under 1% like Obama had. If you are looking for the worst president in our nations history Obama is right near the top of that list. We are still clawing our way out of the economic mess he left behind. Maybe we should get some of that $400000 per speech the worthless one is getting from wall street bankers. Told you he was a hypocrite.President George W. Bush has the worst economic record of any president since Hoover. He holds the worst performance for GDP growth, stock market performance and job creation of any president of at least the most recent 11 presidents, and is near the bottom of the lists for all of the other measures below
Obama dragged us out of the republican mess. Bush was a disaster and he cut taxes.
Year #1
Bush (2002) $421 billion
Obama (2010) $1.652 trillion
Year #7
Bush (2008) $1.017 trillion
Obama (2016) $1.423 trillion
Well that was short-lived! Once again, Obama has a higher deficit than Bush. Does that sound like a "reduction" to you, liar?
Which President Added Most to the U.S. Debt?
Retard 2016 deficit was 650 billion.
Obama deficits: DECREASED by 1 Trillion
Bush deficits: INCREASED by 1 Trillion
You fail at thought at every turn.
Refer to the 1921 tax cut. Spending was also cut./---- Written by left wingers. Pres Reagan's tax cut brought in more revenue
We'll never know. Since this was never a scientifically based experiment. Not only did Reagan cut taxes, he also massively increased spending. It's obvious that increased government spending results in the people they spend it on paying additional taxes. Think cash back on a credit card, ie what's in your wallet. Spend $1,000 and your income went up by $50.
If you want to prove that tax cuts result in increased government revenue, you'll have to do it without massive spending increases at the same time. Just cut taxes, and see what happens. In each case i'm afraid if they cut taxes 10% they would cut revenue 10%.
