Plan to Cut Corporate Tax Rate to 15%

[jillian]

Uh, it's called a graph. It contains information.

Tomorrow we'll work on verbs and long division, sweetheart.

In other words, you'll post some more fake BS.

Are you another one of those people who thinks that facts are "fake BS"?

What facts are posted? Links and graphs? How are those facts? Are you so dumbed down that you believe everything the media says?

It's a comparison of the effective corporate tax rate for western countries, as per the OECD. Holy shit, can you read?

Yeah I can read. When will you post some facts, and not libtard regurgitated garbage?

oh, poor loser.... you wouldn't know facts if they bit you

 

[da Vinci]

What was the demand for small computers before venture capitalists using new money from Reagan's deregulation and tax cuts provided capital for companies like Apple, Microsoft, etc.? There was none, but the "windfall's from Reagan policies allowed investors to take risks on new investments that eventually drove the prosperity of the 1990's. No amount of middle class tax cuts intended to increase demand could have done this.

There was certainly demand for data processing, and more efficient means of consuming, storing, and sharing data back in the 80's. Personal computers were a vehicle to meet that demand. This is true independent of any regressive tax cuts.

Put another way, personal computers - much less regressive tax cuts - didn't invent the demand for data processing any more than the automobile invented the demand for transportation. You're mistaking technological innovation of an already existing, demanded process with the creation of an entirely new, not-previously-demanded process.

If you want to give the Reagan tax cuts credit for something that they actually created, look no further than our national debt. The trend of ballooning deficit spending and national debt begins in the 80s with Reagan's tax cuts. One could also make the argument that those tax cuts play a role in the skewed distribution of wealth and income that has taken hold over the last several decades as well.

There was no demand for personal computers because hardly anyone knew abou them and major companies like IBM and Polaroid who could have produced them didn't because they understood there was no demand for them. Companies like Apple and Microsoft were producing hardware and software for a small market for tech enthusiasts until financing from venture capitalists eager to invest the money they had made from the deregulation of financial institutions and the break up of stagnant corporations allowed these start ups to produce products that finally did gain the notice of both businesses and individuals. Because of this new source of financing these start ups were able to create products that then created their own demand and that is what fueled the economy of the 1990's. Without the bustling economy Reagan created with tax cuts and deregulation, the financing simply wouldn't have been there to launch these new companies.

You have an uncanny ability of missing the point, even though I clearly spelled it out for you. What do personal computers do? They allow us to store, share, process, and consume data. That said, people have been storing, sharing, processing, and consuming data well before the personal computer. And there has always been a demand for more efficient means of storing, sharing, processing, and consuming data. The personal computer met that demand.

Just as there was demand for more efficient means of transportation before the automobile came along, there was also demand for more efficient means of data processing before the PC came along. This is the point, and it is also the fallacy in your line of reasoning.

Whether or not Reagan ever cut taxes is of no consequence to the birth of the personal computer. The personal computer would have came about regardless because it was a tool that met the demand of more efficient means of data processing. One more time: the demand for efficient means of processing predates the birth of the personal computer.

You are talking nonsense. If demand for personal computers was as obvious as you claim, why did major corporations that were already producing computers not begin to make personal computers until after these small start ups financed by investors loaded with money from the Reagan tax cuts and deregulation made them popular? According to you, the CEO's of all the major electronics corporations were too stupid to see the demand for personal computers you claim was so obvious.

The Reagan tax cuts did contribute to more debt, but along with his deregulation they also revitalized the American economy after nearly twenty years of stagnation, and they freed up enormous amounts of investment capital that had been locked away in older, inefficient companies and allowed that capital to be invested in innovative ideas like personal computers which the banks and big corporations had no interest in. No amount of middle class tax cuts intended to increase demand can finance innovative ideas that the major corporations and banks had turned away from, only tax cuts that increase the amount of investment capital to the investor class can.

And don't forget growth.

After 4 years of Carter....any growth was a blessing.


Now after 8 years of Obama's stagnant wages and almost zero growth....economists figure 2% or more isn't good enough for a Trump economy. Anything less that 3.5% is the worst economy since the Great Depression.

The economy grew fairly steadily during the Obama years. What we will likely see is that - outside of some new technological innovation that boosts efficiency - GDP will continue to expand in the 2.0% - 2.8% per year range, which is what we saw during the Obama years. We also saw 12 million private sector jobs added to the economy during the Obama era. That number dwarfs the number of jobs added under the last two republican presidents combined (1.5 million under Bush 1 and we lost 450k under Bush II). In fact, more private sector jobs were added to the economy in 2016 alone than during the entire terms of the last two republican presidents combined.

 

[Siete]

the Billionaire Cartel takes care of their own while pissant RW's pay their way, suck their dicks, and LIKE IT.


THEN BITCH ABOUT THE DEFICIT TAX CUTS CREATED,

 

[mudwhistle]

the Billionaire Cartel takes care of their own while pissant RW's pay their way, suck their dicks, and LIKE IT.


THEN BITCH ABOUT THE DEFICIT TAX CUTS CREATED,

Actually the deficit was created by spending money we don't have.....not by cutting taxes. This is why the deficit climbed by over 300% once Democrats took over congress in 2007.

 

[da Vinci]

the Billionaire Cartel takes care of their own while pissant RW's pay their way, suck their dicks, and LIKE IT.


THEN BITCH ABOUT THE DEFICIT TAX CUTS CREATED,

Actually the deficit was created by spending money we don't have.....not by cutting taxes. This is why the deficit climbed by over 300% once Democrats took over congress in 2007.

The trend of growing budget deficits and ballooning national debt began with the Reagn tax cuts in 1981 (Reagan also began a trend of ramped up government spending). That trend was slowed, and began to reverse during the Clinton era in which taxes were increased. Things then moved in the wrong direction once again under Bush when taxes were again cut. But it all started in 1981 with Reagan. That part isn't debatable.

 

[mudwhistle]

Pelosi blamed spending increases on Bush in 2013, but I remember that every budget Bush submitted to Congress Pelosi had the same response.

"It doesn't go far enough.....it doesn't meet the needs..."

Even now, Democrats blame every God Damned thing they fuck up on "Republicans gutting funding"....

 

[mudwhistle]

the Billionaire Cartel takes care of their own while pissant RW's pay their way, suck their dicks, and LIKE IT.


THEN BITCH ABOUT THE DEFICIT TAX CUTS CREATED,

Actually the deficit was created by spending money we don't have.....not by cutting taxes. This is why the deficit climbed by over 300% once Democrats took over congress in 2007.

The trend of growing budget deficits and ballooning national debt began with the Reagn tax cuts in 1981 (Reagan also began a trend of ramped up government spending). That trend was slowed, and began to reverse during the Clinton era in which taxes were increased. Things then moved in the wrong direction once again under Bush when taxes were again cut. But it all started in 1981 with Reagan. That part isn't debatable.

Yeah...
Right....
Sure...
Uh-huh....

 

[Siete]

the Billionaire Cartel takes care of their own while pissant RW's pay their way, suck their dicks, and LIKE IT.


THEN BITCH ABOUT THE DEFICIT TAX CUTS CREATED,

Actually the deficit was created by spending money we don't have.....not by cutting taxes. This is why the deficit climbed by over 300% once Democrats took over congress in 2007.

you wouldnt know actually if it bit you in the ass either ..

Trumps tax cuts would add $7 billion to the deficit.

now wipe off your chin and thank him ...

 

[da Vinci]

the Billionaire Cartel takes care of their own while pissant RW's pay their way, suck their dicks, and LIKE IT.


THEN BITCH ABOUT THE DEFICIT TAX CUTS CREATED,

Actually the deficit was created by spending money we don't have.....not by cutting taxes. This is why the deficit climbed by over 300% once Democrats took over congress in 2007.

The trend of growing budget deficits and ballooning national debt began with the Reagn tax cuts in 1981 (Reagan also began a trend of ramped up government spending). That trend was slowed, and began to reverse during the Clinton era in which taxes were increased. Things then moved in the wrong direction once again under Bush when taxes were again cut. But it all started in 1981 with Reagan. That part isn't debatable.

Yeah...
Right....
Sure...
Uh-huh....

OK. So I just gave you the time series chart that clearly shows you our federal debt by year. I clearly pointed out for you the time period where Reagan cut taxes. Are you telling me that you're not able to see the inverse correlation between the Reagan tax cuts and our national debt? Here, I'll even add a bit more detail for you.

Notice any trends there? I mean, it almost seems as if tax cuts correlate with increased debt, doesn't it? And it seems that tax increases clearly slow down, and even reverse that trend, doesn't it?


The chart above is looking at national debt. The chart below looks only at the budget deficits by year. Each bar is color coded for the party of the president overseeing these budgets. Notice any trends there? I mean, it almost seems like the budget has a tendency to move in the wrong direction under certain parties, and in the right direction under others. Have you any response to this beyond, "Yeah...sure...uh huh...."?

 

[mudwhistle]

the Billionaire Cartel takes care of their own while pissant RW's pay their way, suck their dicks, and LIKE IT.


THEN BITCH ABOUT THE DEFICIT TAX CUTS CREATED,

Actually the deficit was created by spending money we don't have.....not by cutting taxes. This is why the deficit climbed by over 300% once Democrats took over congress in 2007.

you wouldnt know actually if it bit you in the ass either ..

Trumps tax cuts would add $7 billion to the deficit.

now wipe off your chin and thank him ...

Only in a total vacuum, dumbass.
Besides.....Obama added $10 trillion to the debt. What's $7 billion in comparison?

Well.....

It's .0007% of Obama's total debt.

 

[mudwhistle]

the Billionaire Cartel takes care of their own while pissant RW's pay their way, suck their dicks, and LIKE IT.


THEN BITCH ABOUT THE DEFICIT TAX CUTS CREATED,

Actually the deficit was created by spending money we don't have.....not by cutting taxes. This is why the deficit climbed by over 300% once Democrats took over congress in 2007.

The trend of growing budget deficits and ballooning national debt began with the Reagn tax cuts in 1981 (Reagan also began a trend of ramped up government spending). That trend was slowed, and began to reverse during the Clinton era in which taxes were increased. Things then moved in the wrong direction once again under Bush when taxes were again cut. But it all started in 1981 with Reagan. That part isn't debatable.

Yeah...
Right....
Sure...
Uh-huh....

OK. So I just gave you the time series chart that clearly shows you our federal debt by year. I clearly pointed out for you the time period where Reagan cut taxes. Are you telling me that you're not able to see the inverse correlation between the Reagan tax cuts and our national debt? Here, I'll even add a bit more detail for you.

Notice any trends there? I mean, it almost seems as if tax cuts correlate with increased debt, doesn't it? And it seems that tax increases clearly slow down, and even reverse that trend, doesn't it?


The chart above is looking at national debt. The chart below looks only at the budget deficits by year. Each bar is color coded for the party of the president overseeing these budgets. Notice any trends there? I mean, it almost seems like the budget has a tendency to move in the wrong direction under certain parties, and in the right direction under others. Have you any response to this beyond, "Yeah...sure...uh huh...."?

So you're saying that Congressional Democrats played golf while Bush ran up the debt?

And Obama gets all of the credit for Republicans cutting the deficit???

Is that what you're saying??

 

[da Vinci]

the Billionaire Cartel takes care of their own while pissant RW's pay their way, suck their dicks, and LIKE IT.


THEN BITCH ABOUT THE DEFICIT TAX CUTS CREATED,

Actually the deficit was created by spending money we don't have.....not by cutting taxes. This is why the deficit climbed by over 300% once Democrats took over congress in 2007.

you wouldnt know actually if it bit you in the ass either ..

Trumps tax cuts would add $7 billion to the deficit.

now wipe off your chin and thank him ...

Only in a total vacuum, dumbass.
Besides.....Obama added $10 trillion to the debt. What's $7 billion in comparison?

Well.....

It's .0007% of Obama's total debt.

Debt only grew to that degree under Obama because he inherited a $1.4 trillion deficit. If you're being handed a government that is structured to bleed $1.4 trillion per year, of course debt is going to increase in the following years. All you can do is work to reduce the deficit each year, which is precisely what we saw under Obama with the deficit being slashed by nearly $1 trillion. That is the fastest rate of deficit reduction since WWII but, yes, of course debt increased during that time.

 

[mudwhistle]

the Billionaire Cartel takes care of their own while pissant RW's pay their way, suck their dicks, and LIKE IT.


THEN BITCH ABOUT THE DEFICIT TAX CUTS CREATED,

Actually the deficit was created by spending money we don't have.....not by cutting taxes. This is why the deficit climbed by over 300% once Democrats took over congress in 2007.

you wouldnt know actually if it bit you in the ass either ..

Trumps tax cuts would add $7 billion to the deficit.

now wipe off your chin and thank him ...

Only in a total vacuum, dumbass.
Besides.....Obama added $10 trillion to the debt. What's $7 billion in comparison?

Well.....

It's .0007% of Obama's total debt.

Debt only grew to that degree under Obama because he inherited a $1.4 trillion deficit. If you're being handed a government that is structured to bleed $1.4 trillion per year, of course debt is going to increase in the following years. All you can do is work to reduce the deficit each year, which is precisely what we saw under Obama with the deficit being slashed by nearly $1 trillion. That is the fastest rate of deficit reduction since WWII but, yes, of course debt increased during that time.

Yeah.....and Obama never voted for a single CR or budget while he was a Senator......

 

[mudwhistle]

the Billionaire Cartel takes care of their own while pissant RW's pay their way, suck their dicks, and LIKE IT.


THEN BITCH ABOUT THE DEFICIT TAX CUTS CREATED,

Actually the deficit was created by spending money we don't have.....not by cutting taxes. This is why the deficit climbed by over 300% once Democrats took over congress in 2007.

you wouldnt know actually if it bit you in the ass either ..

Trumps tax cuts would add $7 billion to the deficit.

now wipe off your chin and thank him ...

Only in a total vacuum, dumbass.
Besides.....Obama added $10 trillion to the debt. What's $7 billion in comparison?

Well.....

It's .0007% of Obama's total debt.

Debt only grew to that degree under Obama because he inherited a $1.4 trillion deficit. If you're being handed a government that is structured to bleed $1.4 trillion per year, of course debt is going to increase in the following years. All you can do is work to reduce the deficit each year, which is precisely what we saw under Obama with the deficit being slashed by nearly $1 trillion. That is the fastest rate of deficit reduction since WWII but, yes, of course debt increased during that time.

So the debt increase was just fuzzy math.

It's that super duper cut in the deficit that really mattered.


OH EYE - SEA NOW!!!

 

[da Vinci]

the Billionaire Cartel takes care of their own while pissant RW's pay their way, suck their dicks, and LIKE IT.


THEN BITCH ABOUT THE DEFICIT TAX CUTS CREATED,

Actually the deficit was created by spending money we don't have.....not by cutting taxes. This is why the deficit climbed by over 300% once Democrats took over congress in 2007.

The trend of growing budget deficits and ballooning national debt began with the Reagn tax cuts in 1981 (Reagan also began a trend of ramped up government spending). That trend was slowed, and began to reverse during the Clinton era in which taxes were increased. Things then moved in the wrong direction once again under Bush when taxes were again cut. But it all started in 1981 with Reagan. That part isn't debatable.

Yeah...
Right....
Sure...
Uh-huh....

OK. So I just gave you the time series chart that clearly shows you our federal debt by year. I clearly pointed out for you the time period where Reagan cut taxes. Are you telling me that you're not able to see the inverse correlation between the Reagan tax cuts and our national debt? Here, I'll even add a bit more detail for you.

Notice any trends there? I mean, it almost seems as if tax cuts correlate with increased debt, doesn't it? And it seems that tax increases clearly slow down, and even reverse that trend, doesn't it?


The chart above is looking at national debt. The chart below looks only at the budget deficits by year. Each bar is color coded for the party of the president overseeing these budgets. Notice any trends there? I mean, it almost seems like the budget has a tendency to move in the wrong direction under certain parties, and in the right direction under others. Have you any response to this beyond, "Yeah...sure...uh huh...."?

So you're saying that Congressional Democrats played golf while Bush ran up the debt?

And Obama gets all of the credit for Republicans cutting the deficit???

Is that what you're say??

I didn't say that. I simply showed you the charts that 1) support the idea that our deficit and debt woes began under Reagan - which, they did and this really isn't even debatable. You either understand that or you don't. And 2) budget deficits clearly have a tendency to move in one during while one party is in office at the executive level and in another direction when the other party is in office.

The budget surplus that Clinton handed off to Bush quickly turned into an exploding deficit because Bush - with the support of a republican house and senate - 1) Cut taxes three times, 2) started two wars, 3) passed a Medicare prescription drug plan whose prices were practically set by the pharmaceutical industry, and 4) after all of this we ended up in the worst economy since the Great Depression.

We saw the deficit reduced by nearly $1 trillion under Obama because of a combination of marginal tax increases and decrease in the rate of federal spending growth.

It almost seems as if increased taxes coupled with spending that is held in check has a tendency to benefit the budget, doesn't it? At the same time, it almost seems as if regressive tax cuts coupled with ramped up spending has a tendency to make the budget worse off, doesn't it?

Trump is currently proposing ramped up defense spending coupled with steep tax cuts. As you look at the graphs that I gave you, mudwhislte, what do you think the outcome will be this time? What do you expect to happen to the federal budget when we once again cut taxes and ramp up defense spending?

 

[toomuchtime_]

What was the demand for small computers before venture capitalists using new money from Reagan's deregulation and tax cuts provided capital for companies like Apple, Microsoft, etc.? There was none, but the "windfall's from Reagan policies allowed investors to take risks on new investments that eventually drove the prosperity of the 1990's. No amount of middle class tax cuts intended to increase demand could have done this.

There was certainly demand for data processing, and more efficient means of consuming, storing, and sharing data back in the 80's. Personal computers were a vehicle to meet that demand. This is true independent of any regressive tax cuts.

Put another way, personal computers - much less regressive tax cuts - didn't invent the demand for data processing any more than the automobile invented the demand for transportation. You're mistaking technological innovation of an already existing, demanded process with the creation of an entirely new, not-previously-demanded process.

If you want to give the Reagan tax cuts credit for something that they actually created, look no further than our national debt. The trend of ballooning deficit spending and national debt begins in the 80s with Reagan's tax cuts. One could also make the argument that those tax cuts play a role in the skewed distribution of wealth and income that has taken hold over the last several decades as well.

There was no demand for personal computers because hardly anyone knew abou them and major companies like IBM and Polaroid who could have produced them didn't because they understood there was no demand for them. Companies like Apple and Microsoft were producing hardware and software for a small market for tech enthusiasts until financing from venture capitalists eager to invest the money they had made from the deregulation of financial institutions and the break up of stagnant corporations allowed these start ups to produce products that finally did gain the notice of both businesses and individuals. Because of this new source of financing these start ups were able to create products that then created their own demand and that is what fueled the economy of the 1990's. Without the bustling economy Reagan created with tax cuts and deregulation, the financing simply wouldn't have been there to launch these new companies.

You have an uncanny ability of missing the point, even though I clearly spelled it out for you. What do personal computers do? They allow us to store, share, process, and consume data. That said, people have been storing, sharing, processing, and consuming data well before the personal computer. And there has always been a demand for more efficient means of storing, sharing, processing, and consuming data. The personal computer met that demand.

Just as there was demand for more efficient means of transportation before the automobile came along, there was also demand for more efficient means of data processing before the PC came along. This is the point, and it is also the fallacy in your line of reasoning.

Whether or not Reagan ever cut taxes is of no consequence to the birth of the personal computer. The personal computer would have came about regardless because it was a tool that met the demand of more efficient means of data processing. One more time: the demand for efficient means of processing predates the birth of the personal computer.

You are talking nonsense. If demand for personal computers was as obvious as you claim, why did major corporations that were already producing computers not begin to make personal computers until after these small start ups financed by investors loaded with money from the Reagan tax cuts and deregulation made them popular? According to you, the CEO's of all the major electronics corporations were too stupid to see the demand for personal computers you claim was so obvious.

The Reagan tax cuts did contribute to more debt, but along with his deregulation they also revitalized the American economy after nearly twenty years of stagnation, and they freed up enormous amounts of investment capital that had been locked away in older, inefficient companies and allowed that capital to be invested in innovative ideas like personal computers which the banks and big corporations had no interest in. No amount of middle class tax cuts intended to increase demand can finance innovative ideas that the major corporations and banks had turned away from, only tax cuts that increase the amount of investment capital to the investor class can.

It isn't "my claim" that we are always in search of more efficient means of data processing. There is always a demand for more efficient means of data processing. This is why companies invest in R&D to come up with new products and innovation to meet that demand. The personal computer was one step in a long line of incremental steps of improving efficiency in data processing. I can't believe that this even needs to be explained to you. What, do you think this is some new concept that I just invented in this thread? Do you honestly believe that I just invented this idea that the economy is always looking for more efficient means of doing things?

And other major corporations took longer to get personal computers to market because doing so isn't easy. It takes quite a bit of time, R&D, testing, retooling, etc, to come up with new innovations that improve data processing. It takes even more time getting those new innovations to market. But, again, corporations invest in this because there is always a demand for more efficient means of data processing. And this is the case regardless of fiscal policy.

Regarding the rest of your comment, there weren't "twenty years of stagnation" prior to the Reagan tax cuts. During the 20 years leading up to the Reagan tax cuts, GDP growth averaged 3.7% per year. The Reagan years - after the tax cut - saw an average GDP growth of 3.5% year. These figures are per the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

At this point I can only reiterate that nothing you are saying correlates with reality. The PC would have came out regardless of tax cuts. A cure for cancer will one day be discovered regardless of tax cuts. The next leap in data processing will come about completely independent of tax cuts. Taxes exist to fund the government, and we're currently operating on a budget deficit. Therefore, we need to increase tax revenues (and control spending, of course). Tax cuts obviously reduce tax revenues so doing so in an environment where we're trying to get control over our budget deficit would be a terrible policy idea - particularly given the fact that the corporate world is already sitting on $2 trillion in cash that it could use to invest today if it chose to do so, and also that corporate profits are breaking records each quarter. The corporate world doesn't need a tax cut at the moment, and the government certainly cannot afford one. If you're looking to stimulate economic growth through fiscal policy, then you should advocate tax cuts for the lower personal income brackets, and those should be offset by increases on the top tier income brackets. Doing so would boost aggregate demand, create jobs, and grow GDP.

You're just not stating facts. All of the major electronic companies had rejected personal computers because they saw no market for them despite having much of the basic research into the hardware and software that was later used by small start ups to create the personal computers. The large corporations developed prototype personal computers as early as the 1950's but never pursued them because they saw no market, that means no demand for them. The drive to produce more efficient mainframes had been going on for years and never led the major corporations to develop personal computers for the market until a couple of college dropouts managed to persuade some venture capitalists to take a chance of their invention. The whole history of the digital revolution is the story of how tiny start ups financed by venture capitalist who were willing to take high risks in the hope of high returns created hardware and software that created the demand for personal computers while the major corporations looked on without interest until these tiny start ups created the demand for personal computers, and none of the major corporations or banks stepped in sooner because none of them saw any demand for personal computers. You're little slight of hand trick trying to say the drive for more efficient data processing led to personal computers is nonsense; it led only to better mainframes. All the money that financed the digital revolution came from the Reagan tax cuts and deregulation.

 

[mudwhistle]

What's amazing is how Osama ran up the debt $10 trillion but cut the deficit to $500 billion. That doesn't work. On average one would have to deficit spend $1.25 trillion/ yr to increase the debt that much over only 8 years. Good thing we took in twice as much in revenue or the debt would have been more like $25 trillion.

 

[mudwhistle]

Actually the deficit was created by spending money we don't have.....not by cutting taxes. This is why the deficit climbed by over 300% once Democrats took over congress in 2007.

The trend of growing budget deficits and ballooning national debt began with the Reagn tax cuts in 1981 (Reagan also began a trend of ramped up government spending). That trend was slowed, and began to reverse during the Clinton era in which taxes were increased. Things then moved in the wrong direction once again under Bush when taxes were again cut. But it all started in 1981 with Reagan. That part isn't debatable.

Yeah...
Right....
Sure...
Uh-huh....

OK. So I just gave you the time series chart that clearly shows you our federal debt by year. I clearly pointed out for you the time period where Reagan cut taxes. Are you telling me that you're not able to see the inverse correlation between the Reagan tax cuts and our national debt? Here, I'll even add a bit more detail for you.

Notice any trends there? I mean, it almost seems as if tax cuts correlate with increased debt, doesn't it? And it seems that tax increases clearly slow down, and even reverse that trend, doesn't it?


The chart above is looking at national debt. The chart below looks only at the budget deficits by year. Each bar is color coded for the party of the president overseeing these budgets. Notice any trends there? I mean, it almost seems like the budget has a tendency to move in the wrong direction under certain parties, and in the right direction under others. Have you any response to this beyond, "Yeah...sure...uh huh...."?

So you're saying that Congressional Democrats played golf while Bush ran up the debt?

And Obama gets all of the credit for Republicans cutting the deficit???

Is that what you're say??

I didn't say that. I simply showed you the charts that 1) support the idea that our deficit and debt woes began under Reagan - which, they did and this really isn't even debatable. You either understand that or you don't. And 2) budget deficits clearly have a tendency to move in one during while one party is in office at the executive level and in another direction when the other party is in office.

The budget surplus that Clinton handed off to Bush quickly turned into an exploding deficit because Bush - with the support of a republican house and senate - 1) Cut taxes three times, 2) started two wars, 3) passed a Medicare prescription drug plan whose prices were practically set by the pharmaceutical industry, and 4) after all of this we ended up in the worst economy since the Great Depression.

We saw the deficit reduced by nearly $1 trillion under Obama because of a combination of marginal tax increases and decrease in the rate of federal spending growth.

It almost seems as if increased taxes coupled with spending that is held in check has a tendency to benefit the budget, doesn't it? At the same time, it almost seems as if regressive tax cuts coupled with ramped up spending has a tendency to make the budget worse off, doesn't it?

Trump is currently proposing ramped up defense spending coupled with steep tax cuts. As you look at the graphs that I gave you, mudwhislte, what do you think the outcome will be this time? What do you expect to happen to the federal budget when we once again cut taxes and ramp up defense spending?

Sorry, but your God Damned charts don't even begin to tell the whole story.

 

[mudwhistle]

Actually the deficit was created by spending money we don't have.....not by cutting taxes. This is why the deficit climbed by over 300% once Democrats took over congress in 2007.

The trend of growing budget deficits and ballooning national debt began with the Reagn tax cuts in 1981 (Reagan also began a trend of ramped up government spending). That trend was slowed, and began to reverse during the Clinton era in which taxes were increased. Things then moved in the wrong direction once again under Bush when taxes were again cut. But it all started in 1981 with Reagan. That part isn't debatable.

Yeah...
Right....
Sure...
Uh-huh....

OK. So I just gave you the time series chart that clearly shows you our federal debt by year. I clearly pointed out for you the time period where Reagan cut taxes. Are you telling me that you're not able to see the inverse correlation between the Reagan tax cuts and our national debt? Here, I'll even add a bit more detail for you.

Notice any trends there? I mean, it almost seems as if tax cuts correlate with increased debt, doesn't it? And it seems that tax increases clearly slow down, and even reverse that trend, doesn't it?


The chart above is looking at national debt. The chart below looks only at the budget deficits by year. Each bar is color coded for the party of the president overseeing these budgets. Notice any trends there? I mean, it almost seems like the budget has a tendency to move in the wrong direction under certain parties, and in the right direction under others. Have you any response to this beyond, "Yeah...sure...uh huh...."?

So you're saying that Congressional Democrats played golf while Bush ran up the debt?

And Obama gets all of the credit for Republicans cutting the deficit???

Is that what you're say??

I didn't say that. I simply showed you the charts that 1) support the idea that our deficit and debt woes began under Reagan - which, they did and this really isn't even debatable. You either understand that or you don't. And 2) budget deficits clearly have a tendency to move in one during while one party is in office at the executive level and in another direction when the other party is in office.

The budget surplus that Clinton handed off to Bush quickly turned into an exploding deficit because Bush - with the support of a republican house and senate - 1) Cut taxes three times, 2) started two wars, 3) passed a Medicare prescription drug plan whose prices were practically set by the pharmaceutical industry, and 4) after all of this we ended up in the worst economy since the Great Depression.

We saw the deficit reduced by nearly $1 trillion under Obama because of a combination of marginal tax increases and decrease in the rate of federal spending growth.

It almost seems as if increased taxes coupled with spending that is held in check has a tendency to benefit the budget, doesn't it? At the same time, it almost seems as if regressive tax cuts coupled with ramped up spending has a tendency to make the budget worse off, doesn't it?

Trump is currently proposing ramped up defense spending coupled with steep tax cuts. As you look at the graphs that I gave you, mudwhislte, what do you think the outcome will be this time? What do you expect to happen to the federal budget when we once again cut taxes and ramp up defense spending?

You would have a point if those two things were all he's proposed.

 

[Wyatt earp]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/us/politics/trump-corporate-tax-rate-15-percent.html?_r=0

This plan sounds great!

With all the money saved by corporations, think of how many new jobs they will create!!! Plus the price of EVERYTHING will go down!!!

This is a WIN for the AMERICAN PEOPLE!!

Any thoughts?

If you live in a white trash country, which voted overwhelmingly for Trump and you find your life better because the rich are getting richer and Trump's promises are connecting to you, than yes, its a win. But you know and I know, talk is not only cheap, it doesn't pay bills or put food on the table....but as long as red necks are happy, hey, more power!!!

In a few more months, reality will sink in and idiots will wake up.....no infastructure bill is coming, no mega jobs from China, no wage increases, Trump is gonna make you idiots life a living hell in a few more months, you'll see

Trickle down has never ever ever ever ever ever worked.

It's better than the alternative..