GOP reveals deficit-financed tax cut package

[Toddsterpatriot]

I asked you how you know there will be no growth to compensate for the loss in tax revenue. That does not answer my question.

1. There was no growth when Bush cut taxes in 2001.
2. There was no growth when Brownback cut taxes in 2013.

So why would there be growth if taxes are cut today?

1. There was no growth when Bush cut taxes in 2001.

Real Gross Domestic Product

The Bush tax cuts were fully phased in May 2003.

So why would there be growth if taxes are cut today?

Because tax cuts increase growth every time.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Trump pushed for tax plan to be called 'Cut Cut Cut Act': report


The Great Orange Douche 'Cut Cut Cut ACT' is a BS PLAN!
It won't do shit for the under 150,000 AGI folks.

1) It cuts taxes for Corporations who pay way less than the 15% on avg.(That does not help the Mid-Class)
2) Most Corporations pay NO TAXES! NONE! As it's used transfer funds (That does not help the Mid-Class)
3) The top 1%-15% pay under 18% on avg. in taxes. (That does not help the Mid-Class)
4) It adds 1-3 trillion to the National debt. A real Conservative plan. Whee! (That does not help the Mis-Class)
5) There is no real plan to CUT CUT CUT spending anywhere. (That does not help the Mis-Class)
6) Romney paid 14%, The Great Douche pays ZERO to 15.8% (That does not help the Mid-Class)



Just review these lying Conservative!

And the GOP/DOPers truth the Great Orange Douche to DO what for you? Explain?

.

It especially wont do anything for welfare queens....Get a ******* job and you too could have a tax break...
Obama increased the debt 10 trillion dollars, the most than the previous 43 other presidents spent in the history of the US..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Screw those rich guys.......raise taxes on the middle class, eh comrade?

Keep taxes on the middle class as they are and raise them on the rich and corporations.

Yes, cut taxes today and cut them again tomorrow.

"Deficits don't matter".

Keep taxes on the middle class as they are and raise them on the rich and corporations.

Nah, let's cut them on the rich and corporations.

"Deficits don't matter".

Cut Federal spending by 30%. To start.

 

[The Derp]

Yeah, those years occured immediately after 9/11. Remember that?

Please explain exactly how 9/11 caused three straight years of revenue below 2000 levels. You can't. Because 9/11 didn't have that effect. In fact, all market losses from 9/11 were regained by November of 2001. GDP growth for 2001 was positive, yet revenue declined. So how could that be? How could GDP grow, but revenue declined? Hmmmm...that's a toughie...

You use 9/11 as an excuse for three years of revenue levels below what they were in 2000? ******* pathetic. Grow up.

See, taxation isn't the only thing that affects the economy, stupid.

9/11 didn't affect the economy in any meaningful way. In fact, because of 9/11 the economy should have grown faster as Bush was telling everyone to go spend money otherwise "the terrorists would win". Remember that? Of course you don't. Because you're a troll.

 

[Flash]

That asshole Obama financed his welfare state with ten trillion dollars in debt and none of the Moon Bats ever said a word about it so their opinion on debt has absolutely no credibility.

At least with a tax cut the money goes back to the people that earned the money instead of Obama's filthy welfare queens and Illegals.

 

[The Derp]

Yeah, Obama did a great job of reducing and eliminating the deficit!

Obama didn't eliminate the deficit, but he reduced it from where your guy Bush the Dumber left it.

Bush the Dumber also created a deficit by erasing the surplus Clinton handed to him; proving Conservatives cannot be trusted to manage anything.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Will add at least $1.5T to the debt without producing any growth to compensate for the drop in revenue. Just like what happened during Bush the Dumber, just like what happened with Brownback in Kansas. Conservatives are a broken record with this deficit-financed tax cutting proposal; they swear this time there will be enough growth to compensate for the loss of revenue. Of course, we have no reason to believe them now, just like we had no reason to believe them in Kansas in 2012, or in DC in 2001.

Never once have Conservative tax cuts ever delivered on any of the promises made of them.

Wrong.

Your little charts fail to take into account the stimulative effect of ballooning deficits during the 80's.

Why didn't that "stimulative effect" happen during the Bush administration or the Obama administration?

It probably did, except that deficits began to fall from 2010 on. Plus you have to take into account how much less cyclical industry with good paying jobs we have now compared to the 80's.

 

[Lakhota]

Not another tax cut for the rich...

 

[NYcarbineer]

That asshole Obama financed his welfare state with ten trillion dollars in debt and none of the Moon Bats ever said a word about it so their opinion on debt has absolutely no credibility.

At least with a tax cut the money goes back to the people that earned the money instead of Obama's filthy welfare queens and Illegals.

The deficit was a trillion dollars when Obama took office.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The deficit is only important to democrats during a republican administration.

And vice versa. Republicans barely made a peep when W doubled the national debt, but sure screamed when it happened under Obama.

Bush's $4.9 trillion in additional deficits was bad. Really bad.
Obama's $9.3 trillion in additional deficits was worse. A lot worse.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, Obama did a great job of reducing and eliminating the deficit!

Obama didn't eliminate the deficit, but he reduced it from where your guy Bush the Dumber left it.

Bush the Dumber also created a deficit by erasing the surplus Clinton handed to him; proving Conservatives cannot be trusted to manage anything.

Obama increased the deficit to $1.5 trillion, moron. Bush's last deficit was $700 billion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

lol, did you watch the roll out on tv. They had a handpicked audience behind the speakers, one of which was a mother holding a baby.

At one point, the mom pulled out a pacifier and stuck it in the baby's mouth. Best symbolism EVER!!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

The deficit is only important to democrats during a republican administration.

And vice versa. Republicans barely made a peep when W doubled the national debt, but sure screamed when it happened under Obama.

Bush's $4.9 trillion in additional deficits was bad. Really bad.
Obama's $9.3 trillion in additional deficits was worse. A lot worse.

Bush kept most of the war costs off-budget.

 

[kiwiman127]

Will add at least $1.5T to the debt without producing any growth to compensate for the drop in revenue. Just like what happened during Bush the Dumber, just like what happened with Brownback in Kansas. Conservatives are a broken record with this deficit-financed tax cutting proposal; they swear this time there will be enough growth to compensate for the loss of revenue. Of course, we have no reason to believe them now, just like we had no reason to believe them in Kansas in 2012, or in DC in 2001.

Never once have Conservative tax cuts ever delivered on any of the promises made of them.

Wrong.

Looking at your graphs, doesn't tell the whole story (naturally).
The Middle Class didn't see income growth in Real Dollars, which is supported by their nosedive in their share of the National Income. The growth occurred with the Top Percentile, while the rest spun their wheels.

 

[The Derp]

The Bush tax cuts were fully phased in May 2003.

Ah, but they started in 2001...and look at that, revenue levels for 2001-2003 were below what they were in 2000. So you took three steps back to take one step forward. So how many steps does that leave you behind?

Secondly, this is a much more accurate picture of the Bush economy, which was built entirely on debt:

So your chart glosses over this here. Proving my point that Conservative economics are entirely about debt. Conservative tax cuts didn't grow anything. Conservative debt did.

And just like Bush did, you're trying to give credit for the surge in the economy, thanks to housing, in 2004 to the tax cuts. So now it becomes clear just why Bush more than doubled the number of subprimes issued a year beginning in 2004, doesn't it? Increasing housing demand grows an economy. And since Bush's tax cuts weren't growing shit, Bush had to slap together a housing bubble in 2003-4 to make the economy look like it was growing as a result of the tax cuts, when it was growing because people were going into debt.

Ouch. That's gotta hurt.

Because tax cuts increase growth every time.

'No they don't. The revenue chart you posted doesn't show that. It shows revenue below 2000 levels for three straight years. It only surpassed 2000 revenue in 2004 because Bush was inflating a mortgage bubble. One you blame on the Democrats. So it's not Bush that deserves credit for any growth...it's the Democrats who you blame for the bubble that should get that credit.

That's why your argument on this topic always falls apart. You hold two diametrically opposed views that end up just being a case of cognitive dissonance.

 

[bripat9643]

Will add at least $1.5T to the debt without producing any growth to compensate for the drop in revenue. Just like what happened during Bush the Dumber, just like what happened with Brownback in Kansas. Conservatives are a broken record with this deficit-financed tax cutting proposal; they swear this time there will be enough growth to compensate for the loss of revenue. Of course, we have no reason to believe them now, just like we had no reason to believe them in Kansas in 2012, or in DC in 2001.

Never once have Conservative tax cuts ever delivered on any of the promises made of them.

Wrong.

Looking at your graphs, doesn't tell the whole story (naturally).
The Middle Class didn't see income growth in Real Dollars, which is supported by their nosedive in their share of the National Income. The growth occurred with the Top Percentile, while the rest spun their wheels.
View attachment 158173 View attachment 158174

You can blame the mass importation of low wage labor for the failure of the middle class to benefit from America's economic growth. The immigrants sucked up all the benefits that normally would have went to the middle class.

 

[The Derp]

Bush's $4.9 trillion in additional deficits was bad. Really bad.
Obama's $9.3 trillion in additional deficits was worse. A lot worse.

...but you can't say how or why it's "bad", just that someone told you once that debt was bad and you ran with it, not bothering to ask "why".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah, those years occured immediately after 9/11. Remember that?

Please explain exactly how 9/11 caused three straight years of revenue below 2000 levels. You can't. Because 9/11 didn't have that effect. In fact, all market losses from 9/11 were regained by November of 2001. GDP growth for 2001 was positive, yet revenue declined. So how could that be? How could GDP grow, but revenue declined? Hmmmm...that's a toughie...

You use 9/11 as an excuse for three years of revenue levels below what they were in 2000? ******* pathetic. Grow up.

See, taxation isn't the only thing that affects the economy, stupid.

9/11 didn't affect the economy in any meaningful way. In fact, because of 9/11 the economy should have grown faster as Bush was telling everyone to go spend money otherwise "the terrorists would win". Remember that? Of course you don't. Because you're a troll.

GDP growth for 2001 was positive, yet revenue declined. So how could that be? How could GDP grow, but revenue declined? Hmmmm...that's a toughie...

Well, since tax cuts signed in June 2001 didn't impact revenue until the following year, perhaps it involves the Internet Bubble that had popped?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The deficit is only important to democrats during a republican administration.

And vice versa. Republicans barely made a peep when W doubled the national debt, but sure screamed when it happened under Obama.

Bush's $4.9 trillion in additional deficits was bad. Really bad.
Obama's $9.3 trillion in additional deficits was worse. A lot worse.

Bush kept most of the war costs off-budget.

All spending hits the deficit. Supplementary spending included.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Bush tax cuts were fully phased in May 2003.

Ah, but they started in 2001...and look at that, revenue levels for 2001-2003 were below what they were in 2000. So you took three steps back to take one step forward. So how many steps does that leave you behind?

Secondly, this is a much more accurate picture of the Bush economy, which was built entirely on debt:

So your chart glosses over this here. Proving my point that Conservative economics are entirely about debt. Conservative tax cuts didn't grow anything. Conservative debt did.

And just like Bush did, you're trying to give credit for the surge in the economy, thanks to housing, in 2004 to the tax cuts. So now it becomes clear just why Bush more than doubled the number of subprimes issued a year beginning in 2004, doesn't it? Increasing housing demand grows an economy. And since Bush's tax cuts weren't growing shit, Bush had to slap together a housing bubble in 2003-4 to make the economy look like it was growing as a result of the tax cuts, when it was growing because people were going into debt.

Ouch. That's gotta hurt.

Because tax cuts increase growth every time.

'No they don't. The revenue chart you posted doesn't show that. It shows revenue below 2000 levels for three straight years. It only surpassed 2000 revenue in 2004 because Bush was inflating a mortgage bubble. One you blame on the Democrats. So it's not Bush that deserves credit for any growth...it's the Democrats who you blame for the bubble that should get that credit.

That's why your argument on this topic always falls apart. You hold two diametrically opposed views that end up just being a case of cognitive dissonance.

Because tax cuts increase growth every time.

'No they don't. The revenue chart you posted doesn't show that.

I didn't post a revenue chart.
And really, don't you know by now that government revenue isn't the highest priority for me.
GDP is much more my concern.