Even Wall Street thinks this tax bill is a loser

[Toddsterpatriot]

Breaking for super dupes... Hillary was not corrupt, she didn't lie to the FBI, the rich don't pay enough in taxes and it's Wrecking the country for 35 years now, and you brainwashed functional morons believe so much bulshit and misinformed character assassination it's ridiculous... You're joke a laughingstock and a horror around the world except in your imaginary GOP world. You didn't win a damn thing with Trump except getting screwed even more...

Hillary was not corrupt, she didn't lie to the FBI,

Shit......dude.......don't bogart that joint.......

Who needs evidence, right, dupe? Comey says Hillary never lied- of course it's a conspiracy now LOL!

Are you talking about Hillary's criminally negligent mishandling of classified material?

Her server appears to be the only one that was not hacked, super dupe. All investigated and no problem, except on the total b*******GOP propaganda service...

Her server appears to be the only one that was not hacked,

The unsecured server that she illegally held classified materials on?
Yeah, that was awesome!!!

 

[francoHFW]

Breaking for super dupes... Hillary was not corrupt, she didn't lie to the FBI, the rich don't pay enough in taxes and it's Wrecking the country for 35 years now, and you brainwashed functional morons believe so much bulshit and misinformed character assassination it's ridiculous... You're joke a laughingstock and a horror around the world except in your imaginary GOP world. You didn't win a damn thing with Trump except getting screwed even more...

Hillary was not corrupt, she didn't lie to the FBI,

Shit......dude.......don't bogart that joint.......

Who needs evidence, right, dupe? Comey says Hillary never lied- of course it's a conspiracy now LOL!

Are you talking about Hillary's criminally negligent mishandling of classified material?

Her server appears to be the only one that was not hacked, super dupe. All investigated and no problem, except on the total b*******GOP propaganda service...

Her server appears to be the only one that was not hacked,

The unsecured server that she illegally held classified materials on?
Yeah, that was awesome!!!

View attachment 164457

Not illegal except on the GOP propaganda service...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hillary was not corrupt, she didn't lie to the FBI,

Shit......dude.......don't bogart that joint.......

Who needs evidence, right, dupe? Comey says Hillary never lied- of course it's a conspiracy now LOL!

Are you talking about Hillary's criminally negligent mishandling of classified material?

Her server appears to be the only one that was not hacked, super dupe. All investigated and no problem, except on the total b*******GOP propaganda service...

Her server appears to be the only one that was not hacked,

The unsecured server that she illegally held classified materials on?
Yeah, that was awesome!!!

View attachment 164457

Not illegal except on the GOP propaganda service...

It is illegal to put classified material on your private server.
It is illegal to not turn over all classified material when you leave government service.
The corrupt old sot did both.

 

[francoHFW]

Who needs evidence, right, dupe? Comey says Hillary never lied- of course it's a conspiracy now LOL!

Are you talking about Hillary's criminally negligent mishandling of classified material?

Her server appears to be the only one that was not hacked, super dupe. All investigated and no problem, except on the total b*******GOP propaganda service...

Her server appears to be the only one that was not hacked,

The unsecured server that she illegally held classified materials on?
Yeah, that was awesome!!!

View attachment 164457

Not illegal except on the GOP propaganda service...

It is illegal to put classified material on your private server.
It is illegal to not turn over all classified material when you leave government service.
The corrupt old sot did both.

Bulshit.

 

[The Derp]

I'll await your link that backs up your claim.

The link you're too cheap and ignorant to view backs up what I'm saying. Meanwhile, you have yet to provide any proof that tax cuts for the rich increase spending by the rich. Then you make captious arguments because you know your points suck.

 

[The Derp]

All you need to prove DERP's claim is to show the savings rate of the rich before the Bush tax cuts and their savings rate after.

You walked right into this one. I expect a full apology now.

Rich Americans save tax cuts instead of spending: Moody's

When the first Bush tax cuts were signed into law in June 2001, pushing the top rate down to 35 per cent, the wealthy boosted savings. The saving rate climbed to 2.8 per cent in the first quarter of 2002 from minus 2 per cent in the second quarter of 2001. The increased savings coincided with a 1.1 per cent decline in the S&P 500 index.

After the second round of Bush tax cuts in May 2003, the rich also increased their saving, with the rate climbing to 7.6 per cent in the first quarter of 2004 from 2.2 per cent in the second quarter of 2003, the Moody's data show.
​

So this is the first nail in the coffin for your argument. Since the wealthy increased their savings post-tax cut, as Moody's says they did above, then that means that cutting taxes for the wealthy doesn't lead to an increase in spending and revenues, and they don't "pay for themselves", thus there's no economic justification for it.

The rest of your argument unravels because that singular thread is pulled. Since the wealthy didn't increase their spending after the tax cut, then tax cuts don't increase revenues, and since tax cuts don't increase revenues, they are the cause of deficits.

 

[The Derp]

First let me laugh in your face then mock you by pointing out there was never a popular vote election, or popular vote campaign, or popular vote campaign strategy, no popular vote campaign stops, no popular vote campaign ads. Why? Obviously because there was no popular vote election. LMAO you libs are not the brightest bulbs.

So then you can't claim your candidate is popular if he didn't win the popular vote, can you?

 

[The Derp]

Is this the same Goldman Sachs that took TARP money because they mismanaged their money so bad that it cost taxpayers millions?Please spare me their self serving BS.

What does that have to do with this? And how does them saying the tax bill will be a loser an example of "self-serving"? You are just trying to gaslight it so you don't have to deal with what they said, right? In 2016, Goldman Sachs gave more money to Conservatives than Democrats.

 

[BluesLegend]

First let me laugh in your face then mock you by pointing out there was never a popular vote election, or popular vote campaign, or popular vote campaign strategy, no popular vote campaign stops, no popular vote campaign ads. Why? Obviously because there was no popular vote election. LMAO you libs are not the brightest bulbs.

So then you can't claim your candidate is popular if he didn't win the popular vote, can you?

He didn't run to win the 'popular vote' he ran to win. Send a memo to Hillary.

 

[The Derp]

He didn't run to win the 'popular vote' he ran to win. Send a memo to Hillary.

So he ran a campaign to lose the popular vote?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'll await your link that backs up your claim.

The link you're too cheap and ignorant to view backs up what I'm saying. Meanwhile, you have yet to provide any proof that tax cuts for the rich increase spending by the rich. Then you make captious arguments because you know your points suck.

The link you're too cheap and ignorant to view backs up what I'm saying.

You never said, how much did you pay for your subscription?

I guess you could post the actual portion of the article that backs your claim.........

Meanwhile, you have yet to provide any proof that tax cuts for the rich increase spending by the rich.

You claimed Bush's tax cuts didn't cause increased spending by the rich....still waiting for your evidence.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

All you need to prove DERP's claim is to show the savings rate of the rich before the Bush tax cuts and their savings rate after.

You walked right into this one. I expect a full apology now.

Rich Americans save tax cuts instead of spending: Moody's

When the first Bush tax cuts were signed into law in June 2001, pushing the top rate down to 35 per cent, the wealthy boosted savings. The saving rate climbed to 2.8 per cent in the first quarter of 2002 from minus 2 per cent in the second quarter of 2001. The increased savings coincided with a 1.1 per cent decline in the S&P 500 index.

After the second round of Bush tax cuts in May 2003, the rich also increased their saving, with the rate climbing to 7.6 per cent in the first quarter of 2004 from 2.2 per cent in the second quarter of 2003, the Moody's data show.
​

So this is the first nail in the coffin for your argument. Since the wealthy increased their savings post-tax cut, as Moody's says they did above, then that means that cutting taxes for the wealthy doesn't lead to an increase in spending and revenues, and they don't "pay for themselves", thus there's no economic justification for it.

The rest of your argument unravels because that singular thread is pulled. Since the wealthy didn't increase their spending after the tax cut, then tax cuts don't increase revenues, and since tax cuts don't increase revenues, they are the cause of deficits.

You walked right into this one.

What did I walk into? Be specific.

I expect a full apology now.

I'm sorry that it took you so long to provide proof of your claim.

So this is the first nail in the coffin for your argument.

What argument of mine do you think you killed here? Just link to my post.

then that means that cutting taxes for the wealthy doesn't lead to an increase in spending and revenues, and they don't "pay for themselves",

I never said they " pay for themselves".

thus there's no economic justification for it.

I disagree.

 

[The Derp]

I'm sorry that it took you so long to provide proof of your claim.

What took so long was you coming to terms with the facts that, unlike you, I don't lie and misrepresent from my sources. Nor do I make sophist and captious arguments when backed into a corner. That's what you're guilty of doing. That's what you should be apologizing for, if you were not a sociopath.

What argument of mine do you think you killed here? Just link to my post.

It kills your argument that tax cuts for the rich lead to any economic growth. Obviously, they don't.

I never said they " pay for themselves".

So since tax cuts don't pay for themselves, don't create jobs, and don't generate enough economic growth, then what good are they?

thus there's no economic justification for it.
I disagree.

Why do you disagree? The data shows that deficits appear, the economy slows, and jobs are lost. So what's the justification?

 

[The Derp]

You claimed Bush's tax cuts didn't cause increased spending by the rich....still waiting for your evidence.

Oh, I posted the evidence. And now that I have, are you going to change your position?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm sorry that it took you so long to provide proof of your claim.

What took so long was you coming to terms with the facts that, unlike you, I don't lie and misrepresent from my sources. Nor do I make sophist and captious arguments when backed into a corner. That's what you're guilty of doing. That's what you should be apologizing for, if you were not a sociopath.

What argument of mine do you think you killed here? Just link to my post.

It kills your argument that tax cuts for the rich lead to any economic growth. Obviously, they don't.

I never said they " pay for themselves".

So since tax cuts don't pay for themselves, don't create jobs, and don't generate enough economic growth, then what good are they?

thus there's no economic justification for it.
I disagree.

Why do you disagree? The data shows that deficits appear, the economy slows, and jobs are lost. So what's the justification?

It kills your argument that tax cuts for the rich lead to any economic growth.

If I get to keep more of my own money because of a tax cut, I can only cause more growth by running out and spending it? I'm not sure if I've ever made that argument, but if you have a post where I did, I'd like see it.

So since tax cuts don't pay for themselves,

Some do, some don't.

don't create jobs, and don't generate enough economic growth,

They do create jobs and generate growth.

The data shows that deficits appear, the economy slows, and jobs are lost.

I disagree with your misinterpretation of data.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You claimed Bush's tax cuts didn't cause increased spending by the rich....still waiting for your evidence.

Oh, I posted the evidence. And now that I have, are you going to change your position?

As soon as you show which position I took that you feel you're refuting.........

 

[sartre play]

Only democrats would oppose a drop in housing prices.

People who own houses would oppose a drop in housing prices.no matter what party they belong too.

 

[Papageorgio]

Is this the same Goldman Sachs that took TARP money because they mismanaged their money so bad that it cost taxpayers millions?Please spare me their self serving BS.

What does that have to do with this? And how does them saying the tax bill will be a loser an example of "self-serving"? You are just trying to gaslight it so you don't have to deal with what they said, right? In 2016, Goldman Sachs gave more money to Conservatives than Democrats.

I don't care what Goldman Sachs political opinions or leanings are they are irrelevant to me. What they are is a to big to fail corporation that will always be bailed out by the government. They were real silent in 2007 and 2008 about the house of cards they built. If you want to believe the big self serving corporate whores, feel free to do so however, I don't trust them.

 

[BluesLegend]

He didn't run to win the 'popular vote' he ran to win. Send a memo to Hillary.

So he ran a campaign to lose the popular vote?

No dummy he ran a campaign to win the electoral college, go find a 5th grader to explain it to you.

 

[The Derp]

I don't care what Goldman Sachs political opinions or leanings are they are irrelevant to me. What they are is a to big to fail corporation that will always be bailed out by the government..

And what does that have to do with their projections? Nothing. You're just trying to gaslight Goldman Sachs so you don't have to accept their conclusions. That's done to protect that pile of shit you call your ego. Why would Goldman Sachs say a tax cut for the rich is a loser?

They were real silent in 2007 and 2008 about the house of cards they built. If you want to believe the big self serving corporate whores, feel free to do so however, I don't trust them.

Exactly how is it "self-serving" by saying the tax cut won't result in any good growth?