Rand Paul doubles down on big, beautiful bill criticism after Trump slam

[leftwinger]

Rand Paul wants to spend no money
Any budget that spends tax dollars gets a NO

Any funding for PBS NPR USAID UN NATO UKRAINE DEPTofED etc. all stuff known fully corrupted and 90% wasteful. Should not be in any Bill. We all know this. Pay 100% for 90% wasted or stolen? No thanks.


I’m beginning to hate the bill. But what choice are we given? Strip it all out some/most/bad quickly in 24 hours?

We need the GOOD in the bill. Adding a bunch more Tax gimmicks and complexities is UGH! Tax code already sucks. Its a giant hodgepodge of special favors on-going.

Could have spent “14 months” working on that, not adding more. No, I don’t have the answers. SHUP on me!

 

[Zincwarrior]

They pay income taxes and taxes on capital gains

Less as a percentage after deductions than the middle class.

 

[Mac-7]

Less as a percentage after deductions than the middle class.

The middle class gets the same deduction as the rich do

However i will qualify that by saying the rich have better lawyers and CPAs which often gives them an advantage

Thats why I support a simplified tax code with no exceptions

 

[JWBooth]

Any funding for PBS NPR USAID UN NATO UKRAINE DEPTofED etc. all stuff known fully corrupted and 90% wasteful. Should not be in any Bill. We all know this. Pay 100% for 90% wasted or stolen? No thanks.


Im beginning to hate the bill. But what choice are we given? Strip it all out some/most bad quickly (24 hours)?

We need the GOOD in the bill. Adding a bunch more Tax gimmicks and complexities is UGH! Tax code already sucks. Its a giant hodgepodge of special favors on-going.

Could have spent “14 months” working on that, not adding more. No, I don’t have the answers. SHUP on me!

14 months carefully crafting workarounds for the bright shiny objects to make absodamnlutely nothing changes that interferes with the grift.

 

[bendog]

This is gibberish and doesn’t really address the point I made.

Tax revenues always go up. Therefore, you can’t use that as a metric to say whether tax cuts cause them to go up.

what he's saying is ... if there's growth and tax cuts, the tax cuts have to be the reason. Of course, that is a logical fallacy of failure to show cause/effect.

For example, the econ grew at roughly the same rate under Obama (before tax cuts) and Trump (after tax cuts)

In short, sometimes tax cuts can jump start an econ .... and sometimes not, depending on things like employment levels, and how close an econ is to full performance ....

 

[Marener]

what he's saying is ... if there's growth and tax cuts, the tax cuts have to be the reason. Of course, that is a logical fallacy of failure to show cause/effect.

For example, the econ grew at roughly the same rate under Obama (before tax cuts) and Trump (after tax cuts)

In short, sometimes tax cuts can jump start an econ .... and sometimes not, depending on things like employment levels, and how close an econ is to full performance ....

I’m not denying that tax cuts can stimulate the economy.

They just never are able to stimulate the economy enough to “pay for themselves” as conservatives believe. It’s a lie they tell themselves because otherwise it’d be hard to justify doing so while also claiming to be fiscal conservatives.

 

[Marener]

I did try the simplistic approach, but since you insist. When the treasury auctions off new bills to finance deficit spending, three things can occur.

1) a private investor (or say Jina) can pay hard cold cash for the debt and the accompanying interest payments. The govt may then issue even more debt to pay the interest. However, even if the govt can pay the interest without more deficit spending, paying the interest takes money OUT OF THE US econ. The fed of course can issue more tbills or the treasury can print more money. Both are inflationary in that - the effect - is MORE DOLLARS wITHOUT any corresponding growth in the econ.

2. We have recently had Tbill auctions where we lacked sufficient buyers. In that case, the Fed just magically increases the amount of money held in its member banks, and buys the tbills and adds that to its QE balance. I'm not wasting time on why that is inflationary.

3. Nobody buys the new debt, and the US defaults on its debt. Personally, I think trump is fucking nuts enough to do this.

ps, IF YUO READ MY PREVIOUS POST, YOU WILL SEE I SAID THE "EFFECT" OF THE FED IS TO CREATE MONEY, NOT THAT THE FED HAS PRINTING PRESSES. IT DOESN'T NEED THEM BECAUSE IT CAN JUST "CREATE" MORE "LIQUIDITY" FOR ITS MEMBER BANKS TO LEND. oR IT CAN ACTUALLY DECREASE LIQUIDITY, WHICH MAKES IT HARDER TO BORROW MONEY.

When did the Fed step in as you claimed in #2?

 

[bendog]

I’m not denying that tax cuts can stimulate the economy.

They just never are able to stimulate the economy enough to “pay for themselves” as conservatives believe. It’s a lie they tell themselves because otherwise it’d be hard to justify doing so while also claiming to be fiscal conservatives.

You cannot prove the Reagan tax cuts failed to stimulate enough growth to pay for themselves, were it not for Reagan's increased spending.

This is becomming dogmatic and gotcha.

 

[leftwinger]

what he's saying is ... if there's growth and tax cuts, the tax cuts have to be the reason. Of course, that is a logical fallacy of failure to show cause/effect.

For example, the econ grew at roughly the same rate under Obama (before tax cuts) and Trump (after tax cuts)

In short, sometimes tax cuts can jump start an econ .... and sometimes not, depending on things like employment levels, and how close an econ is to full performance ....

By that logic Tax cuts did not hinder growth? So good either way. Stop it on me!

 

[bendog]

When did the Fed step in as you claimed in #2?

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-is-the-fed-quietly-buying-billions-in-bonds-and-hoping-nobody-notices-6bda3791

 

[kyzr]

Where did you get that idea?

Basic math. If cutting taxes raised revenue they should be cut to zero. Total bullshit. We've been hearing this nonsense since Reagan and all that happens is more borrowing and $trillions added to the Debt.

Revenue is whatever the government takes in, either in taxes or tariffs.

True, but borrowing also counts toward revenue to pay for the stupid shit congress passes to cover the budget deficit. That's how we got $36T in debt, by BORROWING.

Borrowing by the government usually comes from one source. Social Security.

Nope. They sell bonds. Stupid Janet Yellen sold short term bonds instead of long term bonds when interest rates were near zero, the stupid bimbo.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/janet-yellens-short-term-thinking-180036483.html

Janet Yellen's Short-Term Thinking Could Cost the U.S. Big

They can issue bonds, which is an extremely long-term loan, but most revenue comes from taxes.

They MUST issue bonds to cover the deficit. See above, long-term would have been smarter.

I can see why your masters think raising tariffs is bad, because in April we had a surplus.....and if Trump raised tariffs enough he could pay off the debt in a shorter period of time, and congress doesn't want that.

1. I have no masters, I'm old.
2. Tariffs is a good idea only if they are not too high.
3. If tariffs are too high no one will sell anything, that's why TACO Trump dropped the 145% tariffs on China.

 

[leftwinger]

Of couse if I had $10,000 free dollars every year guaranteed I might spend more. Many would for certain. Yes that would boost USA GDP. If GOVT spend it (it with big overhead), theft and global waste! Less GDP boost due to inefficiency? Unsustainable due to consumption only? GOVT produces nothing of value. How can Stain argue that?

Uncertainty kills the goose. If you have to worry they may demand $50,000 suddenly do you need to save up now to prevent catastrophic 2009 type collapse or worse? Do people with kids have to sell home and move far away due to another big Tax or GOVT caused crisis?

 

[JWBooth]

Tells you all there is to tell.

 

[mudwhistle]

Basic math. If cutting taxes raised revenue they should be cut to zero. Total bullshit. We've been hearing this nonsense since Reagan and all that happens is more borrowing and $trillions added to the Debt.

True, but borrowing also counts toward revenue to pay for the stupid shit congress passes to cover the budget deficit. That's how we got $36T in debt, by BORROWING.

Nope. They sell bonds. Stupid Janet Yellen sold short term bonds instead of long term bonds when interest rates were near zero, the stupid bimbo.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/janet-yellens-short-term-thinking-180036483.html

Janet Yellen's Short-Term Thinking Could Cost the U.S. Big

They MUST issue bonds to cover the deficit. See above, long-term would have been smarter.

1. I have no masters, I'm old.
2. Tariffs is a good idea only if they are not too high.
3. If tariffs are too high no one will sell anything, that's why TACO Trump dropped the 145% tariffs on China.

Cutting taxes raises revenue thru increased spending.
Increased spending causes more demand.....and more need for production of products which creates more wealth that can be reinvested into businesses in the form of upgrades, expansion, and more jobs.

More jobs means more income....which means paying more in income taxes.

Are you following me?

 

[j-mac]

This is gibberish and doesn’t really address the point I made.

Tax revenues always go up. Therefore, you can’t use that as a metric to say whether tax cuts cause them to go up.

You’re full of shit.

 

[Marener]

You’re full of shit.

Are you denying that tax revenues always go up?

 

[j-mac]

Are you denying that tax revenues always go up?

Not playing your games today.

 

[bendog]

By that logic Tax cuts did not hinder growth? So good either way. Stop it on me!

I'm not sure what you're asking. But tax cuts can hinder growth if they accompany higher prices that cause the Fed to hike or not drop rates into growth territory. That's a current concern, and it's what is happening when guys like Dimon carefully and gently (-: suggest the deficits have to be trimmed.

 

[sartre play]

explain to me why musk and some R's are bitching about this bill? what exactly is in it they really don't like?
no tax on tips? no tax on OT?
The bill is 1000 pages which is insanity, longer than moby dick so what else is in there we don't know?

They always offer little tid bits to the many, TO COVER THERE ASSSES,
BOTH PARTYS.
BUT ALWAYS FAVOR There own money, and the BIG money that pays their bills.
Get money out of politics.!
And MAYBE the billions spent to put nit wits in office,
Will instead attract people both smart & that Love AMERICA.

 

[egp320i]

Just own up it

nothing to own up to, not sure what you are insinuating