What you economic illiterates don't comprehend!

[healthmyths]

Wrong!

So then what do you want to cut? List some examples. Because Conservatives have said they would cut Medicare and Medicaid to pay for tax cuts for the rich.

THERE IS NOTHING to CUT!
A) Most idiots think if the budget increases are not made...THEN THAT'S a CUT!!!
The federal budget GROWS because there are automatic increases in everything and that's what Trump is after... REDUCE those automatic increases.
B) And this same old tired cliche "cuts to pay for rich tax cuts"!
HEY IDIOT!!!!! What the hell do you think the "rich" do with their TAX cuts? Dummy! Do they hide that money in their mattresses or bury in the back yard, or buy $100 million yachts, or fly around the USA like Al Gore etc..??
NO... dummy. They don't bury or hide but they do buy $100 million yachts and where do they stay when they fly... places that have people working that get paid!
So please stop this stupid hatred, jealousy and just plain ignorance about the "rich"!
AGAIN IDIOT...

How large are 401(k)s?
As of June 30, 2017, 401(k) plans held an estimated $5.1 trillion in assets and represented 19 percent of the $26.6 trillion in US retirement assets, which includes employer-sponsored retirement plans (both defined benefit (DB) and defined contribution (DC) plans with private- and public-sector employers), individual retirement accounts (IRAs), and annuities. In comparison, 401(k) assets were $3.0 trillion and represented 17 percent of the US retirement market in 2007.
How many Americans have 401(k)s?
In 2015, about 54 million American workers were active 401(k) participants, and there were nearly 550,000 401(k) plans.
ICI - 401(k) Plan Research: FAQs

You start bashing the "rich" and maybe you should be looking around if YOU aren't part of the above!

 

[Spare_change]

Of course, they conveniently ignore the 40%-50% who pay NOTHING. How can NOTHING be your fair share?

So why do that many pay no taxes? BECAUSE YOU CUT THEIR TAXES, REMEMBER?????

So you cut taxes, then complain about the increase on the burden on the wealthy as a result, and your solution is to...cut taxes?

Your taxation argument is just a circle-jerk, with you voluntarily eating the cracker.

No, that's not why they pay no taxes ---- they pay no taxes because liberals, who cannot deliver on their political promises, are forced to buy votes thru give-aways, Ponzi schemes, and bribery. Then, they have the temerity to cloak their deceit in "compassion", "charity", and "caring".

 

[healthmyths]

Post your proof of your 90% number!

Look, I'll concede that it's not 90%. But that still leaves the question of what would you cut unanswered. I expect you to lazily and sloppily just say an arbitrary amount because it's obvious you have no specific ideas because you're as lazy person.

You far left drones have shown you do not understand how the government spending works, especially when you cite SS and Medicare.

In relation to what? How so? What do you mean? Try using a different Russian-to-English internet translator.

Many programs can be cut and ended. End payments to companies that can survive without government assistance.

So you can't even name one program. That's because you're just posturing on this issue. You obviously are just a third-rate propagandist. You should be able to rattle off a list of what you'd cut if you've given it as much thought as you claim. But you can't do that because you are inadequate and insecure in the facts. So all we get is posturing. You have about as much depth as my cat's litter box.

That example has been used for many years and the far left response has been that Conservatives want to kill big bird.However Big Bird is now on HBO..

Yeah, and you know why? Sesame Street had to be sold to HBO because you cut its funding. Now, unless you have HBO or Amazon Prime, you can't have your kid watch it. Now, you may hate Sesame Street personally because they don't represent the troglodyte mouth-breathing, child-molesting Conservatives...so you think it's a good thing moving a public service show to a pay TV entity. But most people see the public good in what Sesame Street does. Don't worry...once you Conservatives are flushed from power, the funding will return and Sesame Street will be available to everyone, not just those whose parents can afford HBO or Amazon Prime.

In Trump Budget, What Media Call 'Cuts' Are Really Increases
Looking at individual programs, it is misleading to state that spending on Medicaid programs will be cut, as many did this morning. The new budget proposes to increase federal Medicaid spending from $378 billion a year today to $524 billion a year in 2027.
It shows how far removed Washington is from everyday Americans for this increase of $146 billion to be called a cut.
The fundamental problem is that special interests are addicted to the rising path of spending. Altering this path by increasing spending at a slower rate always opens change-makers to extraordinary attacks, as we have seen today.

• The Department of Agriculture's Child Nutrition Programs. The program had outlays of $23 billion in 2017, and President Trump has proposed for spending to rise to $34 billion in 2027, a 47% increase. True, this is less than the $29 billion increase that Congress has allocated. But it is still an increase.
• President Trump wants to increase funding from $61 billion in 2017 to $76 billion in 2027 for the Earned Income Tax Credit program, which supplements incomes of low earners and is administered by the Internal Revenue Service. Yes, $1 billion is cut from the baseline, but spending is still rising.
• Wasteful government programs cost taxpayers billions annually, according to the Government Accountability Office.
• America has over 90 anti-poverty programs, 17 food-aid programs and 22 housing-assistance programs. Partly as a result, the federal debt has tripled from less than $6 trillion in 1997 to almost $20 trillion today.

In Trump Budget, What Media Call 'Cuts' Are Really Increases

 

[The Derp]

No, that's not why they pay no taxes

That is exactly why they pay no taxes. You cut taxes so much, so deeply, that it resulted in that many people not having a tax burden. Because of that, the tax burden increases on the rich, even as the marginal tax rates are cut in half. And your solution to that is to...cut taxes, thus repeating the same cycle again. for no other purpose than to further exacerbate the burden so you can use that as an excuse to cut taxes. It's a circle-jerk. And you happily eat the cracker because you're dumb (or because you like the taste).

they pay no taxes because liberals, who cannot deliver on their political promises, are forced to buy votes thru give-aways, Ponzi schemes, and bribery. Then, they have the temerity to cloak their deceit in "compassion", "charity", and "caring".

No, what's clear is you don't know what the fuck you're talking about but you have to posture as if you do because you're a propagandist.

 

[healthmyths]

Part of the tax reform is reducing corporate taxes to 20%.
Many of you truly economic illiterates don't understand the gigantic economic benefit of this one single change.
A new report finds that around the world the extremely wealthy have accumulated at least $21 trillion in secretive offshore accounts. Super Rich Hide $21 Trillion Offshore, Study Says

So if the USA by lowering corporate taxes is able to repatriate just 10% or $2 trillion back to the USA what would be
the effect?
Let's assume of the $2 trillion it breaks down this way:
$1 trillion is re-invested in the stock market, bank accounts US treasuries you name it.
Leaves $1 trillion.
Let's assume then $500 billion is used to hire people for 10 years at $50,000 per year.
Well as most of the economic illiterates don't know, an employer pays an equal % for SS/Medicare 6.2%
So let's add to the $50,000 another $3,000 and round up to $60,000 for benefits,SS/Medicare,etc.
That means of the $500 billion divided by 10 years $50 billion a year or divided by $60,000 or total of 800,000 jobs.
That $50 billion in payroll means in Federal taxes: 12.4% SS/Medicare/income taxes: $18.7 billion to Federal govt.
Now the multiplier effect comes in to play:http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_13143.pdf
"Every $1 million spent is multiplied by 1.18 or $50 billion spent by employees: $60 billion back into the GDP.
Now this is JUST from hiring 800,000 people for 10 years.
Net gains therefore to the Federal government:

$187 billion in tax revenue alone in 10 years.
GDP increasing over $600 billion in 10 years.

AND this is just from 1/4th left of the $2 trillion repatriated.

Now if you economic illiterates want some further validation for what this means from the other 3/4ths of
the $2 trillion repatriated please ask as it gets EVEN better i.e. the multiplier EFFECT!!!

Prove me wrong .... PLEASE!!!

Been there...done that

Slash corporate taxes......they just keep the money

Please provide PROOF!!!

 

[Kosh]

Post your proof of your 90% number!

Look, I'll concede that it's not 90%. But that still leaves the question of what would you cut unanswered. I expect you to lazily and sloppily just say an arbitrary amount because it's obvious you have no specific ideas because you're as lazy person.

You far left drones have shown you do not understand how the government spending works, especially when you cite SS and Medicare.

In relation to what? How so? What do you mean? Try using a different Russian-to-English internet translator.

Many programs can be cut and ended. End payments to companies that can survive without government assistance.

So you can't even name one program. That's because you're just posturing on this issue. You obviously are just a third-rate propagandist. You should be able to rattle off a list of what you'd cut if you've given it as much thought as you claim. But you can't do that because you are inadequate and insecure in the facts. So all we get is posturing. You have about as much depth as my cat's litter box.

That example has been used for many years and the far left response has been that Conservatives want to kill big bird.However Big Bird is now on HBO..

Yeah, and you know why? Sesame Street had to be sold to HBO because you cut its funding. Now, unless you have HBO or Amazon Prime, you can't have your kid watch it. Now, you may hate Sesame Street personally because they don't represent the troglodyte mouth-breathing, child-molesting Conservatives...so you think it's a good thing moving a public service show to a pay TV entity. But most people see the public good in what Sesame Street does. Don't worry...once you Conservatives are flushed from power, the funding will return and Sesame Street will be available to everyone, not just those whose parents can afford HBO or Amazon Prime.

See the far left does not understand how SS and Medicare work.

Also see how the far left can not accept the fact that no cuts were made yet Big Bird moved anyway. They have no basis in reality for their claims. All they can do is run debunked far left religious narratives.

Proof the far left should never should be in charge of anything.

Hint: All you far left drones are a Conservative, you need to deal with it.

 

[Kosh]

Part of the tax reform is reducing corporate taxes to 20%.
Many of you truly economic illiterates don't understand the gigantic economic benefit of this one single change.
A new report finds that around the world the extremely wealthy have accumulated at least $21 trillion in secretive offshore accounts. Super Rich Hide $21 Trillion Offshore, Study Says

So if the USA by lowering corporate taxes is able to repatriate just 10% or $2 trillion back to the USA what would be
the effect?
Let's assume of the $2 trillion it breaks down this way:
$1 trillion is re-invested in the stock market, bank accounts US treasuries you name it.
Leaves $1 trillion.
Let's assume then $500 billion is used to hire people for 10 years at $50,000 per year.
Well as most of the economic illiterates don't know, an employer pays an equal % for SS/Medicare 6.2%
So let's add to the $50,000 another $3,000 and round up to $60,000 for benefits,SS/Medicare,etc.
That means of the $500 billion divided by 10 years $50 billion a year or divided by $60,000 or total of 800,000 jobs.
That $50 billion in payroll means in Federal taxes: 12.4% SS/Medicare/income taxes: $18.7 billion to Federal govt.
Now the multiplier effect comes in to play:http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_13143.pdf
"Every $1 million spent is multiplied by 1.18 or $50 billion spent by employees: $60 billion back into the GDP.
Now this is JUST from hiring 800,000 people for 10 years.
Net gains therefore to the Federal government:

$187 billion in tax revenue alone in 10 years.
GDP increasing over $600 billion in 10 years.

AND this is just from 1/4th left of the $2 trillion repatriated.

Now if you economic illiterates want some further validation for what this means from the other 3/4ths of
the $2 trillion repatriated please ask as it gets EVEN better i.e. the multiplier EFFECT!!!

Prove me wrong .... PLEASE!!!

Been there...done that

Slash corporate taxes......they just keep the money

Please provide PROOF!!!

Do not expect the far left to provide any real proof, they only know debunked far left religious dogma!

 

[healthmyths]

Post your proof of your 90% number!

Look, I'll concede that it's not 90%. But that still leaves the question of what would you cut unanswered. I expect you to lazily and sloppily just say an arbitrary amount because it's obvious you have no specific ideas because you're as lazy person.

You far left drones have shown you do not understand how the government spending works, especially when you cite SS and Medicare.

In relation to what? How so? What do you mean? Try using a different Russian-to-English internet translator.

Many programs can be cut and ended. End payments to companies that can survive without government assistance.

So you can't even name one program. That's because you're just posturing on this issue. You obviously are just a third-rate propagandist. You should be able to rattle off a list of what you'd cut if you've given it as much thought as you claim. But you can't do that because you are inadequate and insecure in the facts. So all we get is posturing. You have about as much depth as my cat's litter box.

That example has been used for many years and the far left response has been that Conservatives want to kill big bird.However Big Bird is now on HBO..

Yeah, and you know why? Sesame Street had to be sold to HBO because you cut its funding. Now, unless you have HBO or Amazon Prime, you can't have your kid watch it. Now, you may hate Sesame Street personally because they don't represent the troglodyte mouth-breathing, child-molesting Conservatives...so you think it's a good thing moving a public service show to a pay TV entity. But most people see the public good in what Sesame Street does. Don't worry...once you Conservatives are flushed from power, the funding will return and Sesame Street will be available to everyone, not just those whose parents can afford HBO or Amazon Prime.

See the far left does not understand how SS and Medicare work.

Also see how the far left can not accept the fact that no cuts were made yet Big Bird moved anyway. They have no basis in reality for their claims. All they can do is run debunked far left religious narratives.

Proof the far left should never should be in charge of anything.

Hint: All you far left drones are a Conservative, you need to deal with it.

I agree they don't seem to know that their Employer pays an equal amount 6.2% into SS/Medicare AND also pay workman's comp and unemployment insurance which all
comes back to the employee. More importantly it is this reason full employment is so necessary because the Federal government counts SS/Medicare as 33% of the entire
Federal revenue.

 

[Mr.Blonde]

Untrue. Completely untrue. Government doesn't have it's own economy. It's part of the whole economy. Direct government spending, by the way, is a better economic multiplier than tax cuts. In fact, tax cuts are the worst when it comes to economic multipliers. Why? Because the wealthy don't spend their tax cuts.

Direct government spending (stimulus) only distorts the market because the money isn't being spent on what it normally would have.

What do you think the rich do with their money? Hide it under their matteress? No they put the money in banks or other some other financial area. That money will either be used to lend or used to expand something else.

Tax cuts are the worst solution and we've seen their failures play out earlier this century with Bush the Dumber, and then later in Kansas with Brownback. Conservative trickle-down tax cuts are so terrible that Republicans in Kansas voted to repeal them this past spring. That's how shitty your economic ideology is; even Republicans think it sucks.

A big part of the problem with individual states trying it is the federal government. The federal government forces states to pay for a bunch of programs. It puts the state government at a disadvantage when trying something new.

Are you being purposefully obtuse or is this just an act?

So you aren't going to answer the question?

Yeah, and you know why? Sesame Street had to be sold to HBO because you cut its funding. Now, unless you have HBO or Amazon Prime, you can't have your kid watch it. Now, you may hate Sesame Street personally because they don't represent the troglodyte mouth-breathing, child-molesting Conservatives...so you think it's a good thing moving a public service show to a pay TV entity. But most people see the public good in what Sesame Street does. Don't worry...once you Conservatives are flushed from power, the funding will return and Sesame Street will be available to everyone, not just those whose parents can afford HBO or Amazon Prime.

PBS still gets Sesame Street, but it airs on HBO first.

 

[Spare_change]

No, that's not why they pay no taxes

That is exactly why they pay no taxes. You cut taxes so much, so deeply, that it resulted in that many people not having a tax burden. Because of that, the tax burden increases on the rich, even as the marginal tax rates are cut in half. And your solution to that is to...cut taxes, thus repeating the same cycle again. for no other purpose than to further exacerbate the burden so you can use that as an excuse to cut taxes. It's a circle-jerk. And you happily eat the cracker because you're dumb (or because you like the taste).

they pay no taxes because liberals, who cannot deliver on their political promises, are forced to buy votes thru give-aways, Ponzi schemes, and bribery. Then, they have the temerity to cloak their deceit in "compassion", "charity", and "caring".

No, what's clear is you don't know what the fuck you're talking about but you have to posture as if you do because you're a propagandist.

What a dumb ass ... you seriously believe this bullshit??

I find it hard to believe that anybody with a third-grade education would buy into this lack of logic. You truly are an embarrassment to the public education system.

Just, go away ... I might be deplorable, but you're irredeemable.

 

[JoeB131]

You don't have to "make it up" CUT SPENDING

Corporate taxes represent less than 10% of federal tax revenue, you can find that by just reducing redundancy, fraud and waste.

You guys have been singing that song since the 1980s. The thing is, there isn't all that much that can be cut, unless you want to give up being a major military power or shred the social safety net.

 

[NightFox]

You don't have to "make it up" CUT SPENDING

Corporate taxes represent less than 10% of federal tax revenue, you can find that by just reducing redundancy, fraud and waste.

You guys have been singing that song since the 1980s. The thing is, there isn't all that much that can be cut, unless you want to give up being a major military power or shred the social safety net.

Whose "you guys"? Are you referring to those of us that believe that the federal government needs to spend within its means and not soak the citizenry with excessive taxation? I guess that would make your ilk the completely fiscally irresponsible crowd that wants to tax, borrow, print and spend the nation into the poor house, you geniuses are doing a GREAT job of that so far, unfortunately for you the road is running out for this recklessness.

The GAO disagrees with you, last time around (2017) they found over $270 billion in overlap, duplication and fragmentation, only half of which have been addressed.

If you thinking cutting military spending is "giving up being a major military power" you're living in a fantasyland, we spend nearly as much as the rest of the world combined on defense and unless you're definition of "major military power" means going to war with the entirety of the rest of the globe we don't need to spend nearly that much.

As far as "shredding the social safety net" apparently you're not aware that the vast majority of what gets spent on subsidies doesn't go to any "social safety net" (i.e. the "poor"), it goes to individuals and organizations that are NOT poor, end the subsidies for those above the poverty line and you can not only cut spending you can provide a MUCH better "social safety net" for people that are actually POOR and need the help.

Everything else (i.e. all the remaining executive departments) can be squeezed for waste and fraud just by FREEZING their budgets at current levels, that'll get you another 4-5% of total spending every year that it remains frozen.

In the meantime eliminating corporate income tax will result in higher returns for investors, higher wages for workers, lower prices for consumers and increased CAPEX, not to mention saving billions of man hours that are wasted every year by corporate bean counters on income taxes, all of which will stimulate economic growth.

 

[JoeB131]

Whose "you guys"? Are you referring to those of us that believe that the federal government needs to spend within its means and not soak the citizenry with excessive taxation? I guess that would make your ilk the completely fiscally irresponsible crowd that wants to tax, borrow, print and spend the nation into the poor house, you geniuses are doing a GREAT job of that so far, unfortunately for you the road is running out for this recklessness.

Except that you guys do it ass-backwards. Look, the thing is, Bill Clinton balanced the budget by making the rich pay their fair share. Obama went form Bush's Trillion Dollar deficits to cutting them to less than 300B a year by - again- making the rich pay their fair share.

Unlike Reagan and the Bush Crime Family who spent, spent spent while giving the tax cuts to the rich.

And Trump is following that script.

NOw here's the thing. I'm all for balanced budgets, but the problem with you guys is that you cut taxes, you really don't cut spending and you cause recessions to boot, but in the process, you make government MORE popular. We get all this stuff, and we don't have to pay for any of it. THAT'S AWESOME.

Really want to make government smaller. Tax enough to cover the deficits and pay back the national debt.

The rest of your post is the usual "fantasy land' shit you guys say all the time when you aren't in power and do nothing about when you are.

 

[Flash]

Part of the tax reform is reducing corporate taxes to 20%.
Many of you truly economic illiterates don't understand the gigantic economic benefit of this one single change.
A new report finds that around the world the extremely wealthy have accumulated at least $21 trillion in secretive offshore accounts. Super Rich Hide $21 Trillion Offshore, Study Says

So if the USA by lowering corporate taxes is able to repatriate just 10% or $2 trillion back to the USA what would be
the effect?
Let's assume of the $2 trillion it breaks down this way:
$1 trillion is re-invested in the stock market, bank accounts US treasuries you name it.
Leaves $1 trillion.
Let's assume then $500 billion is used to hire people for 10 years at $50,000 per year.
Well as most of the economic illiterates don't know, an employer pays an equal % for SS/Medicare 6.2%
So let's add to the $50,000 another $3,000 and round up to $60,000 for benefits,SS/Medicare,etc.
That means of the $500 billion divided by 10 years $50 billion a year or divided by $60,000 or total of 800,000 jobs.
That $50 billion in payroll means in Federal taxes: 12.4% SS/Medicare/income taxes: $18.7 billion to Federal govt.
Now the multiplier effect comes in to play:http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_13143.pdf
"Every $1 million spent is multiplied by 1.18 or $50 billion spent by employees: $60 billion back into the GDP.
Now this is JUST from hiring 800,000 people for 10 years.
Net gains therefore to the Federal government:

$187 billion in tax revenue alone in 10 years.
GDP increasing over $600 billion in 10 years.

AND this is just from 1/4th left of the $2 trillion repatriated.

Now if you economic illiterates want some further validation for what this means from the other 3/4ths of
the $2 trillion repatriated please ask as it gets EVEN better i.e. the multiplier EFFECT!!!

Prove me wrong .... PLEASE!!!

Moon Bats are not exactly known for understanding basic economics.

Hell, most of the dumbshits don't even know they are the ones paying the corporate tax when they buy goods and services made by corporations. they think somebody else pays it.

 

[bendog]

Part of the tax reform is reducing corporate taxes to 20%.
Many of you truly economic illiterates don't understand the gigantic economic benefit of this one single change.
A new report finds that around the world the extremely wealthy have accumulated at least $21 trillion in secretive offshore accounts. Super Rich Hide $21 Trillion Offshore, Study Says

That means of the $500 billion divided by 10 years $50 billion a year or divided by $60,000 or total of 800,000 jobs.
That $50 billion in payroll means in Federal taxes: 12.4% SS/Medicare/income taxes: $18.7 billion to Federal govt.
Now the multiplier effect comes in to play:http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_13143.pdf
"Every $1 million spent is multiplied by 1.18 or $50 billion spent by employees: $60 billion back into the GDP.
Now this is JUST from hiring 800,000 people for 10 years.
Net gains therefore to the Federal government:

$187 billion in tax revenue alone in 10 years.

So if the USA by lowering corporate taxes is able to repatriate just 10% or $2 trillion back to the USA what would be
the effect?
Let's assume of the $2 trillion it breaks down this way:
$1 trillion is re-invested in the stock market, bank accounts US treasuries you name it.
Leaves $1 trillion.
Let's assume then $500 billion is used to hire people for 10 years at $50,000 per year.
Well as most of the economic illiterates don't know, an employer pays an equal % for SS/Medicare 6.2%
So let's add to the $50,000 another $3,000 and round up to $60,000 for benefits,SS/Medicare,etc.
GDP increasing over $600 billion in 10 years.

AND this is just from 1/4th left of the $2 trillion repatriated.

Now if you economic illiterates want some further validation for what this means from the other 3/4ths of
the $2 trillion repatriated please ask as it gets EVEN better i.e. the multiplier EFFECT!!!

Prove me wrong .... PLEASE!!!

Sooo, economic genius, a corporation is a rich person. Here's to you, Bud Lt man of genius. LOL

 

[Natural Citizen]

Part of the tax reform is reducing corporate taxes to 20%.
Many of you truly economic illiterates don't understand the gigantic economic benefit of this one single change.
A new report finds that around the world the extremely wealthy have accumulated at least $21 trillion in secretive offshore accounts. Super Rich Hide $21 Trillion Offshore, Study Says

So if the USA by lowering corporate taxes is able to repatriate just 10% or $2 trillion back to the USA what would be
the effect?
Let's assume of the $2 trillion it breaks down this way:
$1 trillion is re-invested in the stock market, bank accounts US treasuries you name it.
Leaves $1 trillion.
Let's assume then $500 billion is used to hire people for 10 years at $50,000 per year.
Well as most of the economic illiterates don't know, an employer pays an equal % for SS/Medicare 6.2%
So let's add to the $50,000 another $3,000 and round up to $60,000 for benefits,SS/Medicare,etc.
That means of the $500 billion divided by 10 years $50 billion a year or divided by $60,000 or total of 800,000 jobs.
That $50 billion in payroll means in Federal taxes: 12.4% SS/Medicare/income taxes: $18.7 billion to Federal govt.
Now the multiplier effect comes in to play:http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_13143.pdf
"Every $1 million spent is multiplied by 1.18 or $50 billion spent by employees: $60 billion back into the GDP.
Now this is JUST from hiring 800,000 people for 10 years.
Net gains therefore to the Federal government:

$187 billion in tax revenue alone in 10 years.
GDP increasing over $600 billion in 10 years.

AND this is just from 1/4th left of the $2 trillion repatriated.

Now if you economic illiterates want some further validation for what this means from the other 3/4ths of
the $2 trillion repatriated please ask as it gets EVEN better i.e. the multiplier EFFECT!!!

Prove me wrong .... PLEASE!!!

Pairing federal spending and debt with tax cuts does more harm than good. A couple of trillion dollars added to the debt isn't very smart. On top of that, the Federal Reserve will just turn around and monetize that debt. Then the poor, middle class, and senior citizens get hit with another inflation tax.

The GOP tax plan also includes a consumer index price stealth tax which will allow them to further lie about inflation.

 

[healthmyths]

Whose "you guys"? Are you referring to those of us that believe that the federal government needs to spend within its means and not soak the citizenry with excessive taxation? I guess that would make your ilk the completely fiscally irresponsible crowd that wants to tax, borrow, print and spend the nation into the poor house, you geniuses are doing a GREAT job of that so far, unfortunately for you the road is running out for this recklessness.

Except that you guys do it ass-backwards. Look, the thing is, Bill Clinton balanced the budget by making the rich pay their fair share. Obama went form Bush's Trillion Dollar deficits to cutting them to less than 300B a year by - again- making the rich pay their fair share.

Unlike Reagan and the Bush Crime Family who spent, spent spent while giving the tax cuts to the rich.

And Trump is following that script.

NOw here's the thing. I'm all for balanced budgets, but the problem with you guys is that you cut taxes, you really don't cut spending and you cause recessions to boot, but in the process, you make government MORE popular. We get all this stuff, and we don't have to pay for any of it. THAT'S AWESOME.

Really want to make government smaller. Tax enough to cover the deficits and pay back the national debt.

The rest of your post is the usual "fantasy land' shit you guys say all the time when you aren't in power and do nothing about when you are.

A) Clinton didn't balance the budget!

It was Contract with America-era Republicans that established the rhetorical framework within which the aforementioned budget fights occurred.Here’s liberal columnist E.J. Dionne assessing the Clinton presidency in an exchange with Robert Kuttner:"[D]uring the mid-1990s, Clinton himself tacked further to the right than the situation required. He embraced a Republican view of welfare reform. He went along with a brutal immigration bill and assaults on civil liberty in the name of crime control. He accepted the idea of a balanced budget—and then when an economic boom pushed the budget into surplus, he declared that he would pay off the entire national debt."

Clinton's declaration in favor of paying off the national debt was indeed a fiscally conservative position. But it wasn't a capitulation to conservatives -- it was a direct repudiation. Republicans proposed to dissipate the surplus through tax cuts. Clinton insisted on saving the surplus, vetoing their plan, though Republicans ultimately succeeded when Clinton left office and was replaced by a Republican who shared their tax cuts uber alles ideology. Republicans deserve approximately the same share of credit for preserving the 1990s surpluses as the America First Committee does for winning World War II.

Second,

And here’s the Clinton White House’s own website, boasting of a rather important piece of legislation conveniently unmentioned in narratives of deficit reduction that stop at 1993:"[H]e signed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, a major bipartisan agreement to eliminate the national budget deficit, create the conditions for economic growth, and invest in the education and health of our people."
I understand why the Clinton administration likes to claim the 1997 Balanced Budget Act as an achievement.
But it did nothing to reduce the deficit. By 1997, the deficit was dwindling away to nothing. The role of the "Balanced Budget Act" was to take credit for something that was about to happen anyway. The cuts same in the form of lower discretionary spending caps which were never implemented. It did reduce Medicare spending, but devoted all the savings to a children's health insurance program and a capital gains tax cut. Budget experts I've spoken with believe deficit would have been lower if the Act had never passed into law.

Third, Galupo dismisses the 1990s surpluses as mere projections:

It’s critical to remember, too, that ’90s-era surpluses were never cold cash under the federal mattress, but, rather, projections that evaporated with the NASDAQ meltdown, 9/11, and, yes, the Bush tax cuts of 2001.

Who Created The 1990s Surplus, Clinton Or The GOP?


B) Obama increased the National debt more than the 5 previous Presidents! Unlike you HERE is the Federal Reserve results!!!
NOTE: Obama increased by over $9 Trillion which INCLUDED TARP payback that had a profit total payback over $713B on the $625B counted against Bush's budget!

 

[g5000]

Part of the tax reform is reducing corporate taxes to 20%.
Many of you truly economic illiterates don't understand the gigantic economic benefit of this one single change.

Oh, the irony!

Lowering the corporate tax rate to 20 percent without eliminating the tax expenditures which caused the tax rate to be 35 percent in the first place is fucking economic illiteracy which will ADD TO OUR DEBT, dumb shit.

 

[g5000]

B) Obama increased the National debt more than the 5 previous Presidents!

And yet you refuse to condemn a tax plan which will add even more to our debt.

The stench of hypocrisy and innumeracy is all over you, tard.

 

[NightFox]

Whose "you guys"? Are you referring to those of us that believe that the federal government needs to spend within its means and not soak the citizenry with excessive taxation? I guess that would make your ilk the completely fiscally irresponsible crowd that wants to tax, borrow, print and spend the nation into the poor house, you geniuses are doing a GREAT job of that so far, unfortunately for you the road is running out for this recklessness.

Except that you guys do it ass-backwards.

ONCE AGAIN... .who's "You guys" ????

Look, the thing is, Bill Clinton balanced the budget by making the rich pay their fair share. Obama went form Bush's Trillion Dollar deficits to cutting them to less than 300B a year by - again- making the rich pay their fair share.

LOL, you're foolish, the only thing that balanced the budget (if you can call what Congress does a budget and accounting) was the dot-com bubble and the attendant increase in economic activity and that "fair share" meme is just nonsense, if the rich were paying their "fair share" they'd be paying A LOT less since they utilize far less in federal government services than they pay for.

Unlike Reagan and the Bush Crime Family who spent, spent spent while giving the tax cuts to the rich.

And Trump is following that script.

YAWN... more parroted DNC talking points bullshit, get back to me when the DNC releases your brain from captivity and you're capable of carrying out some original thought, preferably some that contains at least a hint of critical analysis.

I don't care about Reagan, the Bushes, Clinton, Obama or Trump they're all components of the same reckless and corrupt system that has created the mess that YOU are now defending.

It's because of brainless hyper partisan droids like you that the criminals in Washington have been allowed to place the economic future of the nation in such dire risk in the first place and instead of doing some homework and critical analysis your lazy ass just regurgitates vapid slogans and talking points.