Does GDP growth mean Federal Tax revenue growth?

[kaz]

Strawman. I didn't say that my "definition" changes. My ability to know what the point I was making changes.

So typically Conservative

I'm just laughing at you now. I pointed out you're too dim witted to memorize two sets of talking points, so I simply have to be a Republican so you can use those or you're completely lost, and you keep proving it!

OMG, OMG, OMG, you called me a conservative, I can't handle it, that's just evil. I'm going to cry now.

Happy?

Idiot

Nothing I'm saying are talking points, and you haven't bothered to find one to use as an example. It seems to me that "talking points" to you means anything you don't have an explanation for, that you don't want to admit on a ******* message board.

Such a goddamned egomaniac.

Your desperate determination to label me as a conservative conclusively shows what you are.

I like how you don't give a shit about arguing with a libertarian and you emotionally cling to the label of conservative, then you challenge me to do work and read all your crap and list the talking points.

Why would I bother when you don't want to figure out where I am and am not a conservative? You just label and screed

 

[The Derp]

Speaking of your lack of economic knowledge. Economists define a correction as a 10% drop and a bear as a 20% drop.

And what about in-between!? Because the market dropped more than 10% over the last two weeks. Global markets dropped more than 10% in the last two weeks. So now you're parsing and pretending and trying to make this an argument about semantics. Gee, I wonder why...

The DOW dropped 10.4% from it's peak and has partially rebounded. The definition of a correction

Wait, so is the market lower or higher than it was 2 weeks ago? It's lower, right? And it continues to fall. Each day. Why is it doing this? What is prompting the "correction"? Care to venture a guess? Because the market doesn't correct itself for no reason...nothing happens for no reason. Everything happens for a reason. So what's the reason for the market "correction"? I'll tell you...the reason is because the tax cut you support is going to cause inflation to rise.

THE TAX CUT YOU SUPPORT IS GOING TO CAUSE INFLATION TO RISE, WHICH IS WHY THE MARKET IS "CORRECTING" ITSELF.

Your bullshit tax policy caused the market correction. Your bullshit tax policy is going to cause inflation to rise, which will wipe out any wage growth that may have occurred, it's going to wipe out any nominal benefit the working class sees from the tax cut, and it's not going to do anything to lower the higher health care costs that came from repealing the mandate.

Because you were trying to support the point that Trump's election would be an economic disaster. This your failing to grasp context is burning you yet again

It already is an economic disaster because he's causing inflation to rise. Inflation rising + higher health care costs + slow wage growth = catastrophe. And BTW - your original contention was that some unnamed liberals said Trump would cause an economic catastrophe...still waitin' on that proof. Instead, you've pretty much absconded responsibility and accountability for that bullshit statement, as we argue with each other how shitty and to what degree of shittiness Trump's market and economy are. So it's not even a debate that Trump's market is bad, what we're arguing about is the degree to which it's bad.

Not an argument you really want to make if your intent is to defend the traitor-in-chief.

LOL, now your insults are attempted spelling checks.

It's not a spell-check thing, it's a knowledge thing. The knowledge that when you refer to the Democratic Party, you call it the Democratic Party. You try to slur the Democratic Party by calling it "Democrat Party". I do make a note though of how you try to diminish your own ignorance by pretending my criticism of you is about something other than your astounding and baffling display of ignorance. Fact is, you're not nearly half as clever, intuitive, or knowledgeable as you want people to think. Not only that, but your instincts are for shit too.

The Democrat party sucks, home boy. You are liars. Fake News, double standards from that which you held Obama to. Fascism trying to shut down free speech you don't like with violence. Voting for a feminist who attacks sexual assault victims and is married to a sexual predator. Calling anyone who disagrees with you on any subject a racist. Defending the dead and illegal aliens voting. You're a party on the brink of totalitarianism.

What a ******* crybaby. All because you don't want to admit that you got suckered. I think what's the most damaging thing for you isn't admitting that you were wrong about the policy you defend; I think what's most damaging to you is coming to terms with the fact that your instincts aren't as good as you want people to think. And I think you scream and cry and whine and project to avoid that aspect of yourself.

What a ******* whiner.

 

[The Derp]

Stopped reading here since you are addressing Republicans instead of me. But this is hilarious. You're actually proud of being too stupid to give me anything but anti-Republican talking points. The idea of actually processing my views instead of parroting Nancy Pelosi is just inconceivable to you, and apparently proudly so.Speaking of Nancy Pelosi, what's wrong with her exactly? Does she have Altzeimer's?

So...

You defend Conservative policy.
You say that the Conservative policy doesn't go far enough.
You defend the Conservative President.

I'd say that makes you a Conservative.

 

[The Derp]

The idea of actually processing my views instead of parroting Nancy Pelosi is just inconceivable to you, and apparently proudly so.

So here's what I will ask of you; you claim I am parroting Pelosi. Well, OK...find a Pelosi quote and line it up next to one of my quotes. Go ahead. I dare you.

 

[kaz]

LOL, now your insults are attempted spelling checks.

It's not a spell-check thing, it's a knowledge thing. The knowledge that when you refer to the Democratic Party, you call it the Democratic Party. You try to slur the Democratic Party by calling it "Democrat Party"

OMG, you're so stupid it's funny. You said it was a "knowledge" thing. I obviously know that. Then you contradicted yourself by acknowledging I am slurring your sainted church of Democrats. Obviously if I'm slurring them (which I am), I know that, right dumb ass?

There is nothing "Democratic" about the Democrat party. What a dumpster fire your brain is.

You're the one so utterly desperate to make your Republican talking points work that you're hysterical that I simply have to be a Republican. You're correct that I'm not a leftist. So if I'm not a leftist, that oh your God has to be a Republican. Otherwise I'm like a ghost to you, you have nothing.

Actually, I'm a liberal. I believe in freedom and choice. Leftists like you believe in the removal of freedom and choice. Ignorant is calling yourselves liberal, there is nothing liberal about you. You're fascists

 

[OKTexas]

Asked and answered, and the tax breaks for wealthy individuals expire at the same time as every one else..

NO THEY DON'T YOU ******* IDIOT.

The tax cut for the top bracket DOES NOT EXPIRE.

The tax cut for corporations DO NOT EXPIRE.

Your tax cut expires, though.

So you're the ******* idiot here. Someone so dumb they were hoodwinked and conned by a failed reality TV host, and a collection of corporate Conservatives who don't give a shit about you, who made their tax cuts permanent and yours temporary.

How does it feel to be used?

All individual tax brackets expire if congress doesn't renew them, if you claim otherwise you're wrong, only the corporate rates don't.


.

 

[kaz]

Stopped reading here since you are addressing Republicans instead of me. But this is hilarious. You're actually proud of being too stupid to give me anything but anti-Republican talking points. The idea of actually processing my views instead of parroting Nancy Pelosi is just inconceivable to you, and apparently proudly so.Speaking of Nancy Pelosi, what's wrong with her exactly? Does she have Altzeimer's?

So...

You defend Conservative policy.
You say that the Conservative policy doesn't go far enough.
You defend the Conservative President.

I'd say that makes you a Conservative.

I see, so it's only about money to you, is it?

Libertarians are actually fiscally conservative, didn't know that, did ya Speed Racer?

We're like Republicans in that except we mean it. We are however socially liberal. We're like the Democrat Party in that way except we mean it. We also want to greatly reduce our military, get it out of all the wars and make it defensive focused. We're like Democrat Party in that except we mean it.

But basically that's the ignorance you roll. Oh, you're arguing conservative one issue that you're conservative on, that makes you a conservative!

LOL, what a dumb ass

 

[kaz]

The idea of actually processing my views instead of parroting Nancy Pelosi is just inconceivable to you, and apparently proudly so.

So here's what I will ask of you; you claim I am parroting Pelosi. Well, OK...find a Pelosi quote and line it up next to one of my quotes. Go ahead. I dare you.

Name anything you disagree with her on. Go ahead. I dare you.

And nothing sweeping pie in the sky. Be specific

 

[The Derp]

Right back at cha. If there was a "budget surplus," then why did the national debt go up every year?

This is what I mean when I say you don't know what the **** you're talking about.

There are actually a few ways of tabulating the debt. One is public debt, which includes all debt borrowed by the federal government and held by investors through Treasury notes and other securities. Another is gross federal debt, which includes public debt plus debt held by the government. The most notable forms of debt held by the government are the trust funds for Social Security and Medicare, money which is owed to beneficiaries in the future.

What Clinton did was use the surpluses to pay down public debt...and that is precisely what happened from 1998-2001.

But what about gross federal debt? In each fiscal year from 1993 to 2001, the gross federal debt increased, because the increase in money in government trust funds exceeded the annual decreases in the federal budget deficit.

So what Clinton did was pay down the debt that we owe to outside investors, using the surplus.

The growth of the surpluses meant the rest of the federal government did not have to issue as much debt to the public. In fact, the federal government paid off more of its old debt than it issued new debt to the public. Therefore, net federal debt held by the public declined.

 

[kaz]

Right back at cha. If there was a "budget surplus," then why did the national debt go up every year?

This is what I mean when I say you don't know what the **** you're talking about.

There are actually a few ways of tabulating the debt. One is public debt, which includes all debt borrowed by the federal government and held by investors through Treasury notes and other securities. Another is gross federal debt, which includes public debt plus debt held by the government. The most notable forms of debt held by the government are the trust funds for Social Security and Medicare, money which is owed to beneficiaries in the future

Interesting, so you admit there is no social security trust fund. Somehow I doubt you grasp what you just said ...

It's funny though how you justify the lies of politicians by calling their lies a different way "of tabulating the debt."

You see, if you double count the same money, poof, no debt! It's just an alternative calculation.

You didn't overspend your credit card. If we subtract the food you bought, poof, it's not overspent! Just a different way of calculating your balance!

 

[The Derp]

Your desperate determination to label me as a conservative conclusively shows what you are.d

If it walks like a piece of shit, talks like a piece of shit, acts like a piece of shit, and thinks like a piece of shit...then it's a piece of shit. It doesn't have to be brown and stinky.

I like how you don't give a shit about arguing with a libertarian and you emotionally cling to the label of conservative, then you challenge me to do work and read all your crap and list the talking points.

Libertarian!? Oh man...I got a couple things to say about people who posture that they're "libertarians", but I think that this saying really captures it entirely;

Libertarians are like house cats; completely convinced of their own independence, yet wholly dependent on others to survive.

Meow.

Why would I bother when you don't want to figure out where I am and am not a conservative? You just label and screed

I don't care what bullshit label you give yourself today to abscond responsibility for what you were before declaring yourself this vague, ambiguous thing that most likely will see its definition change depending on how your argument is faring...just like you did before.

"Libertarian" is just code for a Conservative too embarrassed to admit it.

 

[The Derp]

OMG, you're so stupid it's funny. You said it was a "knowledge" thing. I obviously know that.

Do you? I'm not convinced. Because you said it was a "spellcheck" thing. It's not. It's a knowledge thing. It takes knowledge to know how to refer to the Democratic Party. So you either made the active choice to be disparaging, or you are entirely ignorant. So which is it? Are you an asshole or an ignoramus? Because you can only be one of the two in this. And if you're an asshole, how come you responded with "spellcheck". Doesn't make sense.

Then you contradicted yourself by acknowledging I am slurring your sainted church of Democrats. Obviously if I'm slurring them (which I am), I know that, right dumb ass?

You know that, really? Then why did you respond by saying it was a "spellcheck" thing? If you knew you were being disparaging and that was your intent, why did you respond with the whine about me harping on spelling? That doesn't make sense with the rest of what you're saying. Care to explain? No? Color me shocked. I'm not going to let this go, either, until you make it clear for me whether you were being an asshole or an ignoramus.

There is nothing "Democratic" about the Democrat party. What a dumpster fire your brain is.

Well, give it a few posts as I'm sure you'll redefine the parameters of what you meant, just like you've done before.

You're the one so utterly desperate to make your Republican talking points work that you're hysterical that I simply have to be a Republican. You're correct that I'm not a leftist. So if I'm not a leftist, that oh your God has to be a Republican. Otherwise I'm like a ghost to you, you have nothing.

You are defending Conservative policy. You're defending the Conservative President. You're repeating Conservative arguments. So that makes you...wait for it...a Conservative.

Actually, I'm a liberal. I believe in freedom and choice. Leftists like you believe in the removal of freedom and choice. Ignorant is calling yourselves liberal, there is nothing liberal about you. You're fascists

I thought you were a "Libertarian"? Oh wait, did you just forget that you wrote that? Is this now going to require you going back and redefining the parameters of what "Libertarian" means? Cause that's your modus operandei, it seems.

 

[kaz]

"Libertarian" is just code for a Conservative too embarrassed to admit it.

I've called myself a libertarian since I joined the board, Speed Racer. There's nothing new in that.

What is a small government libertarian?

This is just your hysterical, desperate attempt to do exactly as I said, use your anti-Republican talking points. That's why you're lying on the ground kicking and screaming. Oh your God, to have to process my actual views? You just can't

kaz: I want to slash the military by at 1/3 to 1/2, close all foreign bases and make our military defensive focused
derp, derp, derp: Conservative! conservative! waaahhhhhhh, conservative ...
kaz: I think all drugs, prostitution, gambling, gay sex and other morality laws should be repealed
derp, derp, derp: Conservative! conservative! waaahhhhhhh, conservative ...
Kaz: I think there should be no such thing as government marriage and anyone should be able to marry anyone they want
derp, derp, derp: Conservative! conservative! waaahhhhhhh, conservative ...

You think that's what conservatives support? You're an idiot

 

[kaz]

OMG, you're so stupid it's funny. You said it was a "knowledge" thing. I obviously know that.

Do you? I'm not convinced. Because you said it was a "spellcheck" thing

I called it a spellcheck thing because you were attacking spelling. See how that works? And you turned around and said you knew it was a slur, which means you knew I did it on purpose. But now you don't know, but you do, but you don't ... You really are an idiot

Actually, I'm a liberal. I believe in freedom and choice. Leftists like you believe in the removal of freedom and choice. Ignorant is calling yourselves liberal, there is nothing liberal about you. You're fascists

I thought you were a "Libertarian"? Oh wait, did you just forget that you wrote that? Is this now going to require you going back and redefining the parameters of what "Libertarian" means? Cause that's your modus operandei, it seems.

I'm a classic liberal, that is a libertarian. It's the same thing. What an idiot.

There is nothing liberal about leftists. You are intolerant of new ideas, of anyone who doesn't agree with you, of hearing anything you disagree with.

You are not liberals, you are totalitarian leftists

 

[The Derp]

I see, so it's only about money to you, is it?

Pretty much.

Libertarians are actually fiscally conservative, didn't know that, did ya Speed Racer?

LOL! Libertarians "say" they're fiscally Conservative, but they never actually are. You support a tax plan that adds at least $1.5T to the debt. That's "fiscal conservatism"?! LOL. What a ******* joke. And you even said the tax cut should have been bigger, which would have added more to the debt...that's "fiscal conservatism" how? How is adding $1.5T to the debt "fiscally conservative"? It's not. You're full of shit, your policy sucks, and you're not half as clever or intuitive as you want people to think. You're a fraud.

So forgive me for laughing in your fat, stupid, lying, posturing face when you say you're a "fiscal conservative".

We're like Republicans in that except we mean it. We are however socially liberal. We're like the Democrat Party in that way except we mean it. We also want to greatly reduce our military, get it out of all the wars and make it defensive focused. We're like Democrat Party in that except we mean it.

LOL! There isn't an eye-roll GIF big enough to capture the eye roll I just did:

But basically that's the ignorance you roll. Oh, you're arguing conservative one issue that you're conservative on, that makes you a conservative!OL, what a dumb ass

So because you label yourself as a "Libertarian", I'm supposed to just accept that? Talk about entitled.

 

[The Derp]

Name anything you disagree with her on. Go ahead. I dare you.

HOLD ON! NO! You don't get to abscond responsibility AGAIN. You made an allegation, that I use Pelosi's talking points, and now you're refusing to back that allegation up with anything. Instead you want me to do your work for you. No. That's not how this works. How this works is you lining up what I say next to what Pelosi said, in order to prove your allegation that I am just repeating what she says.

This is that bullshit, lazy entitlement I've been referring to on this thread.

**** you.

And for the record, Pelosi and I disagree on impeachment. Both now and back when Bush was President. Impeachment should always be on the table.

And nothing sweeping pie in the sky. Be specific

So here's what you did:

• You claimed that I am repeating Pelosi's talking points.
• I asked you to line up anything Pelosi said with anything I've said so we can compare.
• Instead of doing that, you redefined the parameters of the conversation to make me go and find points of disagreement on policy with Pelosi, in order to prove your claim that I repeat what she says as talking points.

So that's an example of the laziness and entitlement I've been hammering you on.

 

[kaz]

I see, so it's only about money to you, is it?

Pretty much

At least you admit your greed, Speed Racer

So because you label yourself as a "Libertarian", I'm supposed to just accept that? Talk about entitled.

Actually I said you'd never accept it. You maxed out your brain memorizing Democrat talking points. So everyone not a Democrat is a Republican. Has to be, otherwise we're ghosts to you. That's why you hysterically scream and kick and whine in total desperation that not a Democrat is a Republican, it has to be, it's all you can handle. Memorizing Democrat talking points filled your brain, there's no room left.

And you know I'm a libertarian because I gave you a link with an overview of my views and you'll never see me do anything but support those views. I told you I'm a libertarian in the misguided attempt to give you an idea of what my views are. Turns out you're a nit wit. More specifically I'm a minarchist.

But derp, derp, derp, here's how you think. You're a libertarian? That's not a leftist, that means you're a Republican. Derp, derp, derp It's how you roll

 

[kaz]

Name anything you disagree with her on. Go ahead. I dare you.

HOLD ON! NO! You don't get to abscond responsibility AGAIN

You can't process the difference between a libertarian and a conservative, but you want me to go list Pelosi's leftist crap and match it to your statements, classic, Speed Racer.

And that's how you disagree with Pelosi. You want impeachment, that's the only thing you can name. She's not even against impeachment, all she's really saying is she doesn't think she can get it right now. A non-real disagreement with her is all you can come up with. You couldn't have supported my point any clearer than that. You're a Democrat Party subject. They tell you what to think and like an obedient little slave, you think it!

 

[The Derp]

Interesting, so you admit there is no social security trust fund. Somehow I doubt you grasp what you just said ...

You don't know what the **** you're talking about. Seriously. Not a clue. I couldn't have made it easier for you to understand if I drew it in crayon and used cartoon animals with silly voices to explain it.

It's funny though how you justify the lies of politicians by calling their lies a different way "of tabulating the debt."

For ****'s sake, kaz, grow up. You asked a really dumb question about why the debt didn't decrease when we ran surpluses. I gave you the answer to that question; that Debt held by the Public declined, but overall Gross debt increased by virtue of the fact that the increase in money in government trust funds exceeded the annual decreases in the federal budget deficit.

What is so hard to understand about that? I don't know. I think you're just playing at being obtuse now. I think it's an act. And I think you do it because you're a garbage person who has never been held accountable or responsible for anything in your shit life. That's why you're so lazy and entitled, and why you are constantly trying to redefine the parameters of a debate.

You see, if you double count the same money, poof, no debt! It's just an alternative calculation.You didn't overspend your credit card. If we subtract the food you bought, poof, it's not overspent! Just a different way of calculating your balance!

Sigh...I don't even know what to say to you at this point. It just seems like you're shitting out word diarrhea now to deny the facts as they're presented to you. I think you're just a ******* entitled brat.

 

[kaz]

Interesting, so you admit there is no social security trust fund. Somehow I doubt you grasp what you just said ...

You don't know what the **** you're talking about. Seriously. Not a clue. I couldn't have made it easier for you to understand if I drew it in crayon and used cartoon animals with silly voices to explain it

Thank you for admitting that.

To get to a surplus, you have to double count social security taxes.

You count it as revenue as you did by netting it against spending.

And you still count it as contributions to a fictitious social security trust fund!

Say you have $1T in federal taxes and another $0.1T of social security taxes. And you spent 1.05T.

You say you had $1.1T in revenue, that's a surplus!

Oh, but you saved the $0.1T you already spent by writing an IOU to yourself!

You're counting the social security taxes twice. That isn't another way to calculate debt, it's a lie.

Why isn't military a trust fund? Military spending works the same way. We spend it as it comes in. Why don't we say what we spent on the military is a trust fund just like you do with social security?