Sure hope you like wiping dirty asses...

[AvgGuyIA]

I suppose you are going to kill your mammy and pappy?

They've already passed.

Don't you feel like an asshole now?

Not at all. I wish my wife of 45 years was with me so I can bathe her in her hospice bed once again.

 

[The Derp]

Sure, it will, despite the fact that when Bush, Reagan, JFK, and Harding cut taxes federal revenues increased.......

Nope. Revenue didn't increase.

• Bush cut taxes in 2001, and revenue was below 2000 levels for the next 4 years.
• Reagan cut taxes and had revenue growth BELOW that of Clinton and Obama.
• JFK didn't cut taxes, LBJ did, and LBJ increased government spending by 50%, so there's your revenues
• Harding?! Are you ******* serious? You want to hold up Harding as the model? What happened at the end of the 1920's?

 

[The Derp]

With all the new federal revenue from the result of the tax cut bringing in more taxes for the government, Medicare will be awash with new income.

So I don't want to hear a Conservative ever say again that they don't know what "trickle down economics" is, and that they don't support it.

I have news for you pal, this tax cut isn't going to trickle down. In fact, the federal deficit is going to balloon up to $1T this year thanks to the tax cut.

You're an angry elf.

You're a ******* fraud.

 

[The Derp]

Not at all. I wish my wife of 45 years was with me so I can bathe her in her hospice bed once again.

Hospice care you won't be able to afford...because Medicaid was cut.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

With all the new federal revenue from the result of the tax cut bringing in more taxes for the government, Medicare will be awash with new income.

LOL!

The only thing that "trickles down" is the Russian hooker pee onto Trump's fat, orange face.

your ignorance amuses me.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Not at all. I wish my wife of 45 years was with me so I can bathe her in her hospice bed once again.

Hospice care you won't be able to afford...because Medicaid was cut.

Hospice care pays for a hospital bed and makes sure the patient is supplied with enough drugs to kill a horse. They are discarded when the patient passes.

 

[The Derp]

Sure, it will, despite the fact that when Bush, Reagan, JFK, and Harding cut taxes federal revenues increased.......

I am so glad you made this juvenile argument that you gleaned from other right-wing morons on this message board.

Let's pick this apart one President at a time using the Tax Policy Center's Federal Receipt and Outlays chart:

Bush cut taxes in 2001, accelerated them in 2003
2000 Receipts: $2,025.2
2001 Receipts: $1,991.1 (IS THIS LESS OR MORE THAN $2,025.2?)
2002 Receipts: $1,853.1 (IS THIS LESS OR MORE THAN $2,025.2?)
2003 Receipts: $1,782.3 (IS THIS LESS OR MORE THAN $2,025.2?)
2004 Receipts: $1,880.1 (IS THIS LESS OR MORE THAN $2,025.2?)

Reagan grew revenues at a rate below that of Clinton and Obama
Reagan 1981 Receipts: $599.3
Reagan 1989 Receipts: $991.1
+ 65%

Clinton 1993 Receipts: $1,154.3
Clinton 2001 Receipts: $1,991.1
+ 73%

Obama 2009 Receipts: $2,105.0
Obama 2017 Receipts: $3,643.7
+ 73%

So which is more? 65% or 73%?

LBJ increased government spending by 50%
LBJ Outlays 1964: $118.5
LBJ Outlays 1969: $183.6
+ 55%

Harding produced the stock market bubble which popped by 1929 causing the Great Depression.

 

[The Derp]

Hospice care pays for a hospital bed and makes sure the patient is supplied with enough drugs to kill a horse. They are discarded when the patient passes.

Yeah...sparing you of the burden of not being able to make your relative comfortable in their final days.

I think you get off watching people suffer.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Hospice care pays for a hospital bed and makes sure the patient is supplied with enough drugs to kill a horse. They are discarded when the patient passes.

Yeah...sparing you of the burden of not being able to make your relative comfortable in their final days.

I think you get off watching people suffer.

They bring the bed to the house.

You sure you know what you're saying?

 

[The Derp]

They bring the bed to the house.

Not for free they don't. Medicaid pays for that. And you cut Medicaid so you could give Donald Trump a tax cut. Bravo.

 

[Aba Incieni]

They bring the bed to the house.

Not for free they don't. Medicaid pays for that. And you cut Medicaid so you could give Donald Trump a tax cut. Bravo.

You don't even know what they do. Perhaps you should discuss your preference between Hostess and Little Debbie's.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Sure, it will, despite the fact that when Bush, Reagan, JFK, and Harding cut taxes federal revenues increased.......

I am so glad you made this juvenile argument that you gleaned from other right-wing morons on this message board.

Let's pick this apart one President at a time using the Tax Policy Center's Federal Receipt and Outlays chart:

Bush cut taxes in 2001, accelerated them in 2003
2000 Receipts: $2,025.2
2001 Receipts: $1,991.1 (IS THIS LESS OR MORE THAN $2,025.2?)
2002 Receipts: $1,853.1 (IS THIS LESS OR MORE THAN $2,025.2?)
2003 Receipts: $1,782.3 (IS THIS LESS OR MORE THAN $2,025.2?)
2004 Receipts: $1,880.1 (IS THIS LESS OR MORE THAN $2,025.2?)

Why did you stop at 2004?

2005 Receipts: $2,153.6 (IS THIS LESS OR MORE THAN $2,025.2?)
2006 Receipts: $2,406.9 (IS THIS LESS OR MORE THAN $2,025.2?)
2007 Receipts: $2,568.0 (IS THIS LESS OR MORE THAN $2,025.2?)
2008 Receipts: $2,524.0 (IS THIS LESS OR MORE THAN $2,025.2?)

Oh, I see why, because when you include the next four years it prove me right and you wrong and you're a liar, which we at this forum already know about you.

Reagan grew revenues at a rate below that of Clinton and Obama
Reagan 1981 Receipts: $599.3
Reagan 1989 Receipts: $991.1
+ 65%

Clinton 1993 Receipts: $1,154.3
Clinton 2001 Receipts: $1,991.1
+ 73%

Obama 2009 Receipts: $2,105.0
Obama 2017 Receipts: $3,643.7
+ 73%

So which is more? 65% or 73%?

Clinton presided over the largest technological expansion in human history. Obama took office when the economy was at rock bottom and had little room to go other than up. Reagan was able to realize those revenue increases despite incredibly high interest rates I will also remind you that Obama enacted a cut in the payroll tax to stimulate economic growth and Clinton lowered taxes on capital gains. People who are far more educated than you in economics, as I am, having an MBA and all, understand that there are more factors at play than tax policy, but tax policy is an important factor.

Harding produced the stock market bubble which popped by 1929 causing the Great Depression.

And as far as Harding goes

1920s Income Tax Cuts Sparked Economic Growth and Raised Federal Revenues

Sorry you wasted your time

 

[flacaltenn]

It's not a deceptive claim -it's a ******* fact- one that comes directly from the non-partisan Tax Policy Center. The reason 80-90 million people will see a tax increase by 2027 is because a) the tax cuts expire in 2025, and b) you doofuses chained the tax brackets to CPI, which means simply because of inflation about 80-90 million people will end up in a higher tax bracket by 2027.

Deceptive.. And childish. Because it assumes that DEMS are vote AGAIN (like the lemmings they are) AGAINST renewing the act. Stupid partisan Bovine Excrement is all ya got.

And CPI?? Since when are ANY tax rates tied to CPI? The only thing that matters is how WAGES TRACK the CPI.. But of course --- leftists have a perennial problem with how stuff ACTUALLY work. Math and econ -- not their strong points.

 

[The Derp]

Why did you stop at 2004?

Two reasons:

1. The Bush Mortgage Bubble drove growth beginning in 2004 and extending through 2007.

2. You said that tax revenue always rises after taxes are cut. For one, revenue usually rises every year anyway. But in particular, years after tax cuts see either less revenue (as was the case with Bush the Dumber), or slower revenue growth (as was the case with Reagan). Bush cut taxes and revenue was below 2000 levels for 4 consecutive years, and only started rising again thanks entirely to the Bush Mortgage Bubble, which was caused by the Bush Tax Cuts, according to Bush himself. At no point over the entire span of time covered by the Tax Policy Center Federal Receipt and Outlays Chart, did revenue ever do that. Only during Bush and only after his tax cuts. Why is that?

Oh, I see why, because when you include the next four years it prove me right and you wrong and you're a liar, which we at this forum already know about you.

LOL! So you take four steps back to take one step forward. How many steps does that leave you behind? If Bush hadn't cut taxes, then the revenue would have been even higher. Also, all revenue and growth gains from 2004 until 2008 were due entirely, 100% to the Bush Mortgage Bubble. And you're facing a double-edged sword with this argument you're making; on the one hand, if you trumpet the revenue growth beginning in 2005 (4 years after the tax cuts), you have to credit that growth to the housing bubble...the same housing bubble you erroneously yet inevitably blame on Barney Frank, Bill Clinton, Democrats, the CRA, and the GSE's...which means if you're blaming the housing bubble on Democrats, then you must also give them credit for the economic growth that resulted from that bubble. Which means there's no space in there for your Conservative policy to get credit for anything.

 

[The Derp]

Clinton presided over the largest technological expansion in human history.

No thanks to Conservatives or Reagan. And Clinton entered office in the aftermath specifically because of the recession Reagan caused. So again, you said that tax revenue always rises after taxes are cut. Well, Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and had faster revenue growth than Reagan did.

Obama took office when the economy was at rock bottom and had little room to go other than up.

So thanks Obama for recovering the economy and generating faster revenue growth over the 8 years than Reagan did. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO MADE THIS SHITTY ARGUMENT. Now you're making up excuses. Just give it up. You were ******* wrong when you said that revenue always grows after tax cuts. It doesn't. It doesn't even grow faster after tax cuts either, as the data shows. There exist no parameters within which you can wiggle. Is your ego really worth this much that you would deny reality?

Let me make something crystal ******* clear for you: TAX CUTS DO NOT PAY FOR THEMSELVES. They do not generate more revenue that makes up for the revenue that they lost. All they do is explode the deficit, which thanks to the tax cut you support, will now reach $1T for 2018.

Reagan was able to realize those revenue increases despite incredibly high interest rates

Reagan's economy only started moving once the Fed lowered interest rates. Not because of the tax cut. IN FACT, the Reagan Tax Cut preceded the 1981-2 recession. Which came first? The Reagan tax cut or the 1981-2 recession? The tax cut. The tax cut also preceded the highest unemployment rate since the great depression too, 10.8% in 1982...more than one year after the tax cuts were passed. So unemployment went from around 7% for the first 9 months of Reagan's term, then after the tax cut, unemployment suddenly jumped up to 10.8% by December 1982. But how could that be!? You're telling me that tax cuts generate all this growth...how come after the tax cut there was a recession and massive job loss? Because Conservative policy is shit, and you're a dupe. That's why.

I will also remind you that Obama enacted a cut in the payroll tax to stimulate economic growth and Clinton lowered taxes on capital gains. People who are far more educated than you in economics, as I am, having an MBA and all, understand that there are more factors at play than tax policy, but tax policy is an important factor.

BUT YOUR CLAIM WAS THAT TAX REVENUE *ALWAYS RISES* AFTER A TAX CUT.

That is demonstrably false. Not only does revenue not always rise after a tax cut, revenue grows at lower rates. One thing that does grow after tax cuts are the deficit and debt. You know, those two things that your hair was on fire about throughout Obama that now suddenly doesn't matter to you.

And the Capital Gains Tax Cut directly caused the 2000 dotcom bubble. So thanks for helping me prove my point; most tax cuts are economically disastrous boondoggles that end up tanking economies, creating bubbles, and exploding debt.

1920s Income Tax Cuts Sparked Economic Growth and Raised Federal Revenues

Until 1929 when the culmination of those policies resulted in the Great Depression. So good work there, dingus.

 

[The Derp]

Deceptive.. And childish. Because it assumes that DEMS are vote AGAIN (like the lemmings they are) AGAINST renewing the act. Stupid partisan Bovine Excrement is all ya got.

1. Why the **** should Democrats bail out shitty Conservative policy?

2. By making those cuts temporary, you are admitting that the tax cut overall adds to the deficit, which means the tax cuts do not pay for themselves in increased economic activity.

3. So because of #2, why the **** should Democrats bail you out of the debt hole into which you dug yourself? You didn't want to help recover the economy after the Bush collapse, so why the **** should anyone help you out so you can avoid the political fallout of your shit policy?

And CPI?? Since when are ANY tax rates tied to CPI? The only thing that matters is how WAGES TRACK the CPI.. But of course --- leftists have a perennial problem with how stuff ACTUALLY work. Math and econ -- not their strong points.

The tax rates weren't chained to CPI. BUT YOU CHAINED THEM TO CPI WITH THIS BILL. Because CPI has a lower rate of inflation than actual inflation, the tax brackets rise at a lower rate than incomes do. That's how people get pushed into higher brackets by inflation, you know-nothing poseur.

Stop. Just stop. You're an embarrassment.

 

[jknowgood]

Uhm...I've gone through it a few times.

In your own home? I doubt it. You've probably visited relatives in hospice or convalescent care, and then you skip off back home, out of sight-out of mind.

But that's not going to be the case thanks to these tax cuts. Instead of brief visits, you're going to be embedded in the fight against disease 24/7.

But I guess some people like watching their parents slowly wither and die.

The reality is that fighting so hard against cutting people's taxes is a giant political loser.

This tax cut is the most unpopular legislation ever. Even moreso than Obamacare was.

Typical liberal, throw your parents in a government run nursing home. Have you ever seen one? My mom will stay with me, before that would ever happen. Go **** yourself.

 

[Aba Incieni]

The Democrat's vehement stance against allowing people to keep more of their own money is merely a continuation of their slide into oblivion.

 

[The Derp]

Typical liberal, throw your parents in a government run nursing home. Have you ever seen one? My mom will stay with me, before that would ever happen. Go **** yourself.

Thing is, because of this tax cut you dumbly support, you won't even be able to afford those shitty government nursing homes. So congrats! You and you alone get to take care of your sick and dying parents. All so AT&T could get a tax cut it didn't need.

 

[The Derp]

You don't even know what they do. Perhaps you should discuss your preference between Hostess and Little Debbie's.

What they do is immaterial to the fact that it gets paid by Medicaid and/or Medicare, which you want to cut because you just had to give Bob Corker a personal tax break.