Why do you people play this game? Really!
Why don't you see if revenue WENT UP, OR DOWN, to the federal government!
If it went down dramatically, you have made your case.
If it went UP, then we need to address the spending side, and what program do you want to kill!
Every tax cut since Reagan has slowed the growth of revenue, that is why tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts are bad for the country.
Really, are you telling everyone on this board that eventhough after the Reagan tax cuts, using inflation adjusted dollars, that the revenue to the government did NOT grow by almost double?
You are kidding all of us, you can NOT be that dumb!
I am telling you that the 10 years prior to the Reagan tax cuts revenue grew at an average of 12.41% per year and the 10 years after it grew at a average of 5.68% per year. These are the facts, what you do with them is up to you.
Well, lookie here, another spinner. You gotta love them.
So tell us Golf, what is larger...…………….10% of a million, or 40% of 100,000?
You being smart and all should know...…….that what Reagan and Kennedy did was----------------> make MORE TAXABLE INCOME by growing the pie larger through economic growth, thus INCREASING tax revenue to Washington, even at a lower rate.
What do we want more, lets see! A larger INCOME at a lower rate, orrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, less income, at a higher rate!
Wait, wait. Are you a closet SJW? That is the only explanation I can come up with; and oh by the way, why don't you look at the historical tax rates, and the amount of GDP they took in before you answer-) That will tell you exactly WHY higher rates do not work-)
so, you choose to ignore the facts and go on a unintelligible rant instead.
I would like to say that I am surprised, but I do not like to lie.
By the way, I am not pushing for a higher tax rate, I am just stating that tax cuts should always be accompanied with spending cuts...but statist like you never want to cut spending.
I am one of those rare individuals that think we should pay for what we spend and not leave it for our kids and grandkids...another idea that I am sure has never entered your little partisan sheep mind.
Hey, I am all for spending cuts, at no time did I ever say I was not. The only thing I pointed out is----------->from Coolidge, to Kennedy, to Reagan, etc...…………...every time taxes were cut, 2 things happened,
1. The economy grew much faster, and.....
2. Receipts to the treasury increased massively.
You can't argue with history, since it has already been written, if you wish to try, be my guest.
Now, if you want to put forth the premise that MORE tax money would have entered the coiffures allowing the government to have an easier time to balance the books if spending was also cut, we can have that conversation. Depending upon how you frame it, I would probably support your supposition, although neither one of us would have much if any historical data to support that premise, and both Left and Right would have a field day with us.
But then, the question has to be asked---------->politically...………….could the Presidents who cut taxes and INCREASED revenue at the same time, have gotten the tax cuts through congress, IF the plan had spending cuts included?
If I am correct, and I am not going to look it up so forgive me...…...under some proposal Reagan put forth, every 2 new dollars in spending, had to be accompanied by 1 dollar in spending cuts. If my historical memory is correct, it passed. Guess what. NEVER HAPPENED!
And on another note a little off topic---------->
Do you know why people many of us...……..especially conservatives are soooooo partisan today?
ANSWER, AND MAYBE THIS WILL ENLIGHTEN YOU ON OUR POSITION----------->
Throughout most of our modern history, anything that was done good or bad in Washington was mostly bipartisan. Coolidge, Reagan, Kennedy tax cuts, all bipartisan. The Clinton expansion...….bipartisan. They all agreed to disagree but compromised, so in the end, they all get credit for the good, and worked together to eliminate the bad.
No longer! Look at Obamacare. Look at the wall. Look at the tax cuts. There is no compromise to keep the country moving any longer, it is "my way, or the highway."
And so, while I am not exactly enthusiastic over everything the right wants to do, if I have to choose between that way and Socialism, you know which way most older Americans are going to go. If BOTH sides would show a little compromise, it would be far easier to pick and choose between the two!
CONSIDER-------->You seem like a deficit hawk to me, so what do you think of this green deal? To stay EXACTLY where we are, the sales tax would have to rise to 90% almost doubling the cost of anything. Sooooooooooo, if the Democrats get control, will we deficit spend like crazy, or raise taxes to that tune? And you know the Democrats will do it, they did Obamacare, and this is just the next step. Both party's move in increments, we both know that, but if one or the other has control and can't be stopped, it is, oh boy!
So for ME, the question has to be--------->what is LESS BAD. Partisan, not really, IF they would go back to COMPROMISE!
