Jeb Bush’s tax plan shows Republicans can’t learn from economic history

[NYcarbineer]

Why not take con tax policy to its logical conclusion. Cut the tax percent for the top 10% to zero. They pay no tax.

By con thinking the economy would be the best it has ever been and would grow at such a rate that everyone would become wealthy and then all would be in the zero percentile bracket.

Its easy to understand how the Waltons think this a good idea.

How exactly working class and poor Republicans buy into this steaming pile of crap is one of the mysteries of the human mind. Con-media is able to convince working class and poor conservatives of absolutely ANYTHING.

people who cannot bring themselves to admit under Progressive governance the very richest got richer and the poorest got poorer AT A FASTER PACE will always tend to be surprised at things; like what others are convinced of.
Maybe if you spent less time finger-pointing and more time looking in a mirror things might be a bit more focused for you????

Wow you have a high propensity for ignoring what other people say.

I return your view of the world back to you.

He mentioned facts. It is simply fact that the upper income groups have seen large rises in their income under Obama while lower income groups have had even lower income under Obama.
What about that statement do you disagree with or think is wrong?

Up until last year we've been under the Bush tax plan, not the Obama tax plan.

So if you're going to blame tax policy for any of the income gap, you blame Bush's tax policy.

Like Obama hasnt been president for 7 years already.

So you're blaming the income gap increases on Obama failing to get rid of Bush's tax policy.

Okay...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why not take con tax policy to its logical conclusion. Cut the tax percent for the top 10% to zero. They pay no tax.

By con thinking the economy would be the best it has ever been and would grow at such a rate that everyone would become wealthy and then all would be in the zero percentile bracket.

Its easy to understand how the Waltons think this a good idea.

How exactly working class and poor Republicans buy into this steaming pile of crap is one of the mysteries of the human mind. Con-media is able to convince working class and poor conservatives of absolutely ANYTHING.

people who cannot bring themselves to admit under Progressive governance the very richest got richer and the poorest got poorer AT A FASTER PACE will always tend to be surprised at things; like what others are convinced of.
Maybe if you spent less time finger-pointing and more time looking in a mirror things might be a bit more focused for you????

Wow you have a high propensity for ignoring what other people say.

I return your view of the world back to you.

He mentioned facts. It is simply fact that the upper income groups have seen large rises in their income under Obama while lower income groups have had even lower income under Obama.
What about that statement do you disagree with or think is wrong?

Up until last year we've been under the Bush tax plan, not the Obama tax plan.

So if you're going to blame tax policy for any of the income gap, you blame Bush's tax policy.

what are you talking about leftard? the tax BUSH plan that obama made 98% of PERMANENT???

Yes. You people are blaming the income gap numbers on Obama's failure to get rid of Bush's tax policy.

 

[The Rabbi]

people who cannot bring themselves to admit under Progressive governance the very richest got richer and the poorest got poorer AT A FASTER PACE will always tend to be surprised at things; like what others are convinced of.
Maybe if you spent less time finger-pointing and more time looking in a mirror things might be a bit more focused for you????

Wow you have a high propensity for ignoring what other people say.

I return your view of the world back to you.

He mentioned facts. It is simply fact that the upper income groups have seen large rises in their income under Obama while lower income groups have had even lower income under Obama.
What about that statement do you disagree with or think is wrong?

Up until last year we've been under the Bush tax plan, not the Obama tax plan.

So if you're going to blame tax policy for any of the income gap, you blame Bush's tax policy.

Like Obama hasnt been president for 7 years already.

So you're blaming the income gap increases on Obama failing to get rid of Bush's tax policy.

Okay...

No. But you couldnt possibly understand anything that complicated.

 

[bedowin62]

people who cannot bring themselves to admit under Progressive governance the very richest got richer and the poorest got poorer AT A FASTER PACE will always tend to be surprised at things; like what others are convinced of.
Maybe if you spent less time finger-pointing and more time looking in a mirror things might be a bit more focused for you????

Wow you have a high propensity for ignoring what other people say.

I return your view of the world back to you.

He mentioned facts. It is simply fact that the upper income groups have seen large rises in their income under Obama while lower income groups have had even lower income under Obama.
What about that statement do you disagree with or think is wrong?

Up until last year we've been under the Bush tax plan, not the Obama tax plan.

So if you're going to blame tax policy for any of the income gap, you blame Bush's tax policy.

what are you talking about leftard? the tax BUSH plan that obama made 98% of PERMANENT???

Yes. You people are blaming the income gap numbers on Obama's failure to get rid of Bush's tax policy.

YAWN. no loon; that doesnt explain why it has gotten WORSE AND WORSE AT A FASTER PACE UNDER OBAMA THAN UNDER BUSH. so if, as you note obama retained the Bush tax policy, and all other things being equal; it was SOMETHING ELSE that obama did on his own that made THE RICHEST RICHER AND THE POOREST POORER

you just cant hang with the adults here Carbintard

 

[bedowin62]

Income inequality grows four times faster under Obama than ...
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/.../inco-s03.ht...

• Cached

World Socialist Web Site
Loading...
Sep 3, 2013 - Income inequality grew four times faster in the first three years of the Obama administration than under Bush, according to figures published ...

 

[bedowin62]

Obama Policies Increasing Inequality - Breitbart
www.breitbart.com/.../obama-policies-make-inequality-a-lot-wo...

• Cached

Breitbart
Loading...
Sep 16, 2013 - Income inequality has been growing since the 1970s, but President Obama's ... Obama's economic policies are making it worse and at a faster pace than ... It traded with the world much less than rivals like Germany, labor was ...

 

[bedowin62]

Income Inequality Grew Faster Under Obama, According To ...
www.huffingtonpost.com/.../income-inequality-oba...

• Cached
• Similar

The Huffington Post
Loading...
Sep 1, 2013 - For his part, it seems Obama at least recognizes the danger in letting the income gap grow. He told the NYT earlier this year that lawmakers ...

 

[NYcarbineer]

How many more Americans will pay no income tax under Jeb's plan? You know, that thing the RWnuts pretend to hate?

 

[bedowin62]

How many more Americans will pay no income tax under Jeb's plan? You know, that thing the RWnuts pretend to hate?

what are you babbling about now genius??

what do right-wingers "pretend to hate'/??

jeb bush's tax plan? or income tax?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Disregarding for the moment your assertion as approaching some basis in truth, If more money were coming into the treasury under the Reagan and Bush tax cuts and fiscal policies, why then did the Public Debt increased to 286.4% of it initial value during Reagan's eight (8) budget years and by 205.1% during Bush's eight (8) budget years. If a bunch more was coming into the public purse as you claim, but the Public Debt rose by 286% and 205% of their initial values under Reagan and Bush respectively, then they were HUGE spenders, spending like there was no tomorrow, OR your claim is false OR BOTH!

I'm going with both!!!!

Now which excuse will you use to dodge a direct response to the absolute assertion you made!

In Reagan's case the Congress was dominated by Democrats, who increased spending far faster than revenue increased. In Bush's case Congress was initially dominated by Republicans who thought they could re-elected by acting like Democrats, and Bush failed to veto any of these spending bills.
But you dont have to take my word for the increase in revenue. There are websites and the like where you could easily track government revenue over time following those tax cuts.
But as I said, even Obama understands that lowering some taxes produces more revenue. If he gets it, why dont you?

Reagan had the veto power, so why didn't the wimp use it if you're assertion that the Democrats increased the budget over and over? So Bush failed to use his veto power too, and the Democrats held a gun to Bush's head? That dog don't hunt, Bubba!

Here comes the Bullshit flag for 15 yards! What ever the hell you do don't mention Bush's either 7 or so supplemental budgets that were all OFF BUDGET adding nearly $2 trillion to the debt. Reagan cut taxes a couple of times and then turned around and hiked taxes multiple times.

Yet, increasing the cash flow into the Treasury is half of the picture. The other half of the story is the amount leaving the Treasury to pay the bills these spendthrift administrations, regardless of stripe, went through on "defense" buildups and WAR!

Your deflection to avoid acknowledging your premise was flawed is duly noted. Highlight that white mark at the bottom of my initial post to you (#12). You did just what I predicted!

We are discussing revenue, not deficits. Therefore you are deflecting.
Reagan was a wimp? You're hilarious.

I responded to the fallacies of your posts, fool! If you don't wish to discuss the topic of your post then why even respond, unless it's to cover your errors. I predicted you would do this in my initial post to you. It's your MO!

No you arent, moron. You are attempting to conflate revenue with deficits and somehow blame Reagan. Or Bush. Or something.
My point stands: even Obama acknowledges that cutting taxes in some areas produces more revenue than less.

The only mention of deficits was yours. Obviously you don't know the difference between deficits and Public Debt.

Your post to which I originally replied, asserted that Reagan and Bush & Co. cut taxes and the money came rolling into the Treasury. I pointed out that even if that were true, the Public Debt nearly tripled under Reagan and more than doubled under Bush & Co. So it would be OBVIOUS to even the simple minded that IF there was LESS REVENUE coming in that would impact the balance of the cash on hand in the Treasury. Those two factors are directly linked, whether you want to observe that connection or not!

Bottom line is you FAILED to prove a damn thing, and you're really pissed you got caught out!

 

[bedowin62]

the Left's point is that the National Debt and the share of it that is public debt was greater under Reagan and his 8-year Democrat Houae majority holding the purse strings; and Reagan should have vetoed what Dems put on his desk

OKAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYY

 

[The Rabbi]

In Reagan's case the Congress was dominated by Democrats, who increased spending far faster than revenue increased. In Bush's case Congress was initially dominated by Republicans who thought they could re-elected by acting like Democrats, and Bush failed to veto any of these spending bills.
But you dont have to take my word for the increase in revenue. There are websites and the like where you could easily track government revenue over time following those tax cuts.
But as I said, even Obama understands that lowering some taxes produces more revenue. If he gets it, why dont you?

Reagan had the veto power, so why didn't the wimp use it if you're assertion that the Democrats increased the budget over and over? So Bush failed to use his veto power too, and the Democrats held a gun to Bush's head? That dog don't hunt, Bubba!

Here comes the Bullshit flag for 15 yards! What ever the hell you do don't mention Bush's either 7 or so supplemental budgets that were all OFF BUDGET adding nearly $2 trillion to the debt. Reagan cut taxes a couple of times and then turned around and hiked taxes multiple times.

Yet, increasing the cash flow into the Treasury is half of the picture. The other half of the story is the amount leaving the Treasury to pay the bills these spendthrift administrations, regardless of stripe, went through on "defense" buildups and WAR!

Your deflection to avoid acknowledging your premise was flawed is duly noted. Highlight that white mark at the bottom of my initial post to you (#12). You did just what I predicted!

We are discussing revenue, not deficits. Therefore you are deflecting.
Reagan was a wimp? You're hilarious.

I responded to the fallacies of your posts, fool! If you don't wish to discuss the topic of your post then why even respond, unless it's to cover your errors. I predicted you would do this in my initial post to you. It's your MO!

No you arent, moron. You are attempting to conflate revenue with deficits and somehow blame Reagan. Or Bush. Or something.
My point stands: even Obama acknowledges that cutting taxes in some areas produces more revenue than less.

The only mention of deficits was yours. Obviously you don't know the difference between deficits and Public Debt.

Your post to which I originally replied, asserted that Reagan and Bush & Co. cut taxes and the money came rolling into the Treasury. I pointed out that even if that were true, the Public Debt nearly tripled under Reagan and more than doubled under Bush & Co. So it would be OBVIOUS to even the simple minded that IF there was LESS REVENUE coming in that would impact the balance of the cash on hand in the Treasury. Those two factors are directly linked, whether you want to observe that connection or not!

Bottom line is you FAILED to prove a damn thing, and you're really pissed you got caught out!

Wow, you are truly retailing some weapons grade stupidity.
Debt is a function of accumulating deficits. Deficits are a function of both revenue and spending. Since my post addressed neither deficits nor debt your post pointing to one or the other (you are typically unclear) is a deflection. Nor do your claims refute my assertion that Reagan's and Bush's tax cuts brought more revenue into the Treasury, not less.
If these points are not clear to you you have no further business in this discussion.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Reagan had the veto power, so why didn't the wimp use it if you're assertion that the Democrats increased the budget over and over? So Bush failed to use his veto power too, and the Democrats held a gun to Bush's head? That dog don't hunt, Bubba!

Here comes the Bullshit flag for 15 yards! What ever the hell you do don't mention Bush's either 7 or so supplemental budgets that were all OFF BUDGET adding nearly $2 trillion to the debt. Reagan cut taxes a couple of times and then turned around and hiked taxes multiple times.

Yet, increasing the cash flow into the Treasury is half of the picture. The other half of the story is the amount leaving the Treasury to pay the bills these spendthrift administrations, regardless of stripe, went through on "defense" buildups and WAR!

Your deflection to avoid acknowledging your premise was flawed is duly noted. Highlight that white mark at the bottom of my initial post to you (#12). You did just what I predicted!

We are discussing revenue, not deficits. Therefore you are deflecting.
Reagan was a wimp? You're hilarious.

I responded to the fallacies of your posts, fool! If you don't wish to discuss the topic of your post then why even respond, unless it's to cover your errors. I predicted you would do this in my initial post to you. It's your MO!

No you arent, moron. You are attempting to conflate revenue with deficits and somehow blame Reagan. Or Bush. Or something.
My point stands: even Obama acknowledges that cutting taxes in some areas produces more revenue than less.

The only mention of deficits was yours. Obviously you don't know the difference between deficits and Public Debt.

Your post to which I originally replied, asserted that Reagan and Bush & Co. cut taxes and the money came rolling into the Treasury. I pointed out that even if that were true, the Public Debt nearly tripled under Reagan and more than doubled under Bush & Co. So it would be OBVIOUS to even the simple minded that IF there was LESS REVENUE coming in that would impact the balance of the cash on hand in the Treasury. Those two factors are directly linked, whether you want to observe that connection or not!

Bottom line is you FAILED to prove a damn thing, and you're really pissed you got caught out!

Wow, you are truly retailing some weapons grade stupidity.
Debt is a function of accumulating deficits. Deficits are a function of both revenue and spending. Since my post addressed neither deficits nor debt your post pointing to one or the other (you are typically unclear) is a deflection. Nor do your claims refute my assertion that Reagan's and Bush's tax cuts brought more revenue into the Treasury, not less.
If these points are not clear to you you have no further business in this discussion.

You're an IDIOT and are devoid of intellectual honesty, and project your own traits like other fanatics populating this board. I know you don't want to discuss how much Your fucking heroes, Reagan and Bush & Co. spent like madmen spendthrifts, resulting in these alleged record treasury receipts evaporating, so you deflected at every point and projected your schtick, putz!

Actually, dimwit, deficits are only a function of OVER SPENDING BEYOND THE BUDGETED REVENUE! Hence its full descriptor, BUDGET DEFICIT! While the BUDGET is based on the expected/projected REVENUE. (Page 64 in the text of Number Stuff 101) You must have skipped that day. That is the reason Bush and Co. did all those HUGE Supplemental spending bills in the late Summer so they wouldn't show up on the BUDGET DEFICITS since that excess spending was charged DIRECTLY TO THE TOTAL DEBT AS IT ACCUMULATED DURING THE PY!

Long story short, you are dead fucking wrong. So it's going to be interesting to see how you are going to dance around the fire now, PUTZ!

So put a fork in me, I'm done with you, ya dishonest SOB!

 

[bedowin62]

We are discussing revenue, not deficits. Therefore you are deflecting.
Reagan was a wimp? You're hilarious.

I responded to the fallacies of your posts, fool! If you don't wish to discuss the topic of your post then why even respond, unless it's to cover your errors. I predicted you would do this in my initial post to you. It's your MO!

No you arent, moron. You are attempting to conflate revenue with deficits and somehow blame Reagan. Or Bush. Or something.
My point stands: even Obama acknowledges that cutting taxes in some areas produces more revenue than less.

The only mention of deficits was yours. Obviously you don't know the difference between deficits and Public Debt.

Your post to which I originally replied, asserted that Reagan and Bush & Co. cut taxes and the money came rolling into the Treasury. I pointed out that even if that were true, the Public Debt nearly tripled under Reagan and more than doubled under Bush & Co. So it would be OBVIOUS to even the simple minded that IF there was LESS REVENUE coming in that would impact the balance of the cash on hand in the Treasury. Those two factors are directly linked, whether you want to observe that connection or not!

Bottom line is you FAILED to prove a damn thing, and you're really pissed you got caught out!

Wow, you are truly retailing some weapons grade stupidity.
Debt is a function of accumulating deficits. Deficits are a function of both revenue and spending. Since my post addressed neither deficits nor debt your post pointing to one or the other (you are typically unclear) is a deflection. Nor do your claims refute my assertion that Reagan's and Bush's tax cuts brought more revenue into the Treasury, not less.
If these points are not clear to you you have no further business in this discussion.

You're an IDIOT and are devoid of intellectual honesty, and project your own traits like other fanatics populating this board. I know you don't want to discuss how much Your fucking heroes, Reagan and Bush & Co. spent like madmen spendthrifts, resulting in these alleged record treasury receipts evaporating, so you deflected at every point and projected your schtick, putz!

Actually, dimwit, deficits are only a function of OVER SPENDING BEYOND THE BUDGETED REVENUE! Hence its full descriptor, BUDGET DEFICIT! While the BUDGET is based on the expected/projected REVENUE. (Page 64 in the text of Number Stuff 101) You must have skipped that day. That is the reason Bush and Co. did all those HUGE Supplemental spending bills in the late Summer so they wouldn't show up on the BUDGET DEFICITS!

Long story short, you are dead fucking wrong. So it's going to be interesting to see how you are going to dance around the fire now, PUTZ!

you poor angry idiot. the supplemental bills you speak of are still the way Democrats funded both wars on their portions of them

and the "projected/expected revenue" are what allows obama to make all kinds of claims of fiscal responsibility

no dancing needed idiot

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

I responded to the fallacies of your posts, fool! If you don't wish to discuss the topic of your post then why even respond, unless it's to cover your errors. I predicted you would do this in my initial post to you. It's your MO!

No you arent, moron. You are attempting to conflate revenue with deficits and somehow blame Reagan. Or Bush. Or something.
My point stands: even Obama acknowledges that cutting taxes in some areas produces more revenue than less.

The only mention of deficits was yours. Obviously you don't know the difference between deficits and Public Debt.

Your post to which I originally replied, asserted that Reagan and Bush & Co. cut taxes and the money came rolling into the Treasury. I pointed out that even if that were true, the Public Debt nearly tripled under Reagan and more than doubled under Bush & Co. So it would be OBVIOUS to even the simple minded that IF there was LESS REVENUE coming in that would impact the balance of the cash on hand in the Treasury. Those two factors are directly linked, whether you want to observe that connection or not!

Bottom line is you FAILED to prove a damn thing, and you're really pissed you got caught out!

Wow, you are truly retailing some weapons grade stupidity.
Debt is a function of accumulating deficits. Deficits are a function of both revenue and spending. Since my post addressed neither deficits nor debt your post pointing to one or the other (you are typically unclear) is a deflection. Nor do your claims refute my assertion that Reagan's and Bush's tax cuts brought more revenue into the Treasury, not less.
If these points are not clear to you you have no further business in this discussion.

You're an IDIOT and are devoid of intellectual honesty, and project your own traits like other fanatics populating this board. I know you don't want to discuss how much Your fucking heroes, Reagan and Bush & Co. spent like madmen spendthrifts, resulting in these alleged record treasury receipts evaporating, so you deflected at every point and projected your schtick, putz!

Actually, dimwit, deficits are only a function of OVER SPENDING BEYOND THE BUDGETED REVENUE! Hence its full descriptor, BUDGET DEFICIT! While the BUDGET is based on the expected/projected REVENUE. (Page 64 in the text of Number Stuff 101) You must have skipped that day. That is the reason Bush and Co. did all those HUGE Supplemental spending bills in the late Summer so they wouldn't show up on the BUDGET DEFICITS!

Long story short, you are dead fucking wrong. So it's going to be interesting to see how you are going to dance around the fire now, PUTZ!

you poor angry idiot. the supplemental bills you speak of are still the way Democrats funded both wars on their portions of them

and the "projected/expected revenue" are what allows obama to make all kinds of claims of fiscal responsibility

no dancing needed idiot

Were the Democrats complicit in passage of the supplemental bills? Damn Right they were! Did I say otherwise? Fuck no I didn't, IDIOT! Did Bush & Co. consistently, year after year, lowball their defense funding needs, then call for supplemental funding later in the year after the passage of the budget package.? Damn straight they did! Reading and understanding are important for failed dummies like yourself to get a grasp upon before you take your dirt nap!

 

[bedowin62]

No you arent, moron. You are attempting to conflate revenue with deficits and somehow blame Reagan. Or Bush. Or something.
My point stands: even Obama acknowledges that cutting taxes in some areas produces more revenue than less.

The only mention of deficits was yours. Obviously you don't know the difference between deficits and Public Debt.

Your post to which I originally replied, asserted that Reagan and Bush & Co. cut taxes and the money came rolling into the Treasury. I pointed out that even if that were true, the Public Debt nearly tripled under Reagan and more than doubled under Bush & Co. So it would be OBVIOUS to even the simple minded that IF there was LESS REVENUE coming in that would impact the balance of the cash on hand in the Treasury. Those two factors are directly linked, whether you want to observe that connection or not!

Bottom line is you FAILED to prove a damn thing, and you're really pissed you got caught out!

Wow, you are truly retailing some weapons grade stupidity.
Debt is a function of accumulating deficits. Deficits are a function of both revenue and spending. Since my post addressed neither deficits nor debt your post pointing to one or the other (you are typically unclear) is a deflection. Nor do your claims refute my assertion that Reagan's and Bush's tax cuts brought more revenue into the Treasury, not less.
If these points are not clear to you you have no further business in this discussion.

You're an IDIOT and are devoid of intellectual honesty, and project your own traits like other fanatics populating this board. I know you don't want to discuss how much Your fucking heroes, Reagan and Bush & Co. spent like madmen spendthrifts, resulting in these alleged record treasury receipts evaporating, so you deflected at every point and projected your schtick, putz!

Actually, dimwit, deficits are only a function of OVER SPENDING BEYOND THE BUDGETED REVENUE! Hence its full descriptor, BUDGET DEFICIT! While the BUDGET is based on the expected/projected REVENUE. (Page 64 in the text of Number Stuff 101) You must have skipped that day. That is the reason Bush and Co. did all those HUGE Supplemental spending bills in the late Summer so they wouldn't show up on the BUDGET DEFICITS!

Long story short, you are dead fucking wrong. So it's going to be interesting to see how you are going to dance around the fire now, PUTZ!

you poor angry idiot. the supplemental bills you speak of are still the way Democrats funded both wars on their portions of them

and the "projected/expected revenue" are what allows obama to make all kinds of claims of fiscal responsibility

no dancing needed idiot

Were the Democrats complicit in passage of the supplemental bills? Damn Right they were! Did I say otherwise? Fuck no I didn't, IDIOT! Did Bush & Co. consistently, year after year, lowball their defense funding needs, then call for supplemental funding later in the year after the passage of the budget package.? Damn straight they did! Reading and understanding are important for failed dummies like yourself to get a grasp upon before you take your dirt nap!

since you admit that you aint saying nothing idiot. it's not that i didnt understand what you are saying moron; it's just that i recognized from the jump IT'S IRRELEVANT!1

and unless you were in top-level funding meetings on military strategy you are in no position to posit the conspriacy theory that they were low-balled on purpose to keep tings looking less expensive then they were


i also recognized that from the jump

ok go cry now loser

 

[bedowin62]

wars are expensive idiot...............asymetrical wars of this type that LITERALLY caused books on war theory to be re-written show that accurate estimates on costs were impossible, they are nearly impossible in any war

any loser can spew out a conspriacy