Tax Cuts Steal Democracy

[The Derp]

Yup. And everyone else benefits, because the nasty rich people are picking up a larger portion of the total.

Who is benefiting? Going allllllllllllllllllllllllllll they way back to the first post on this thread shows that no one benefited other than the wealthy from the tax cuts. Do I need to post all those charts again?

So you gloss over the fact that the top tax rate for the wealthy has been cut in half, and instead try to make (another) emotional argument about the unfair tax burden caused by the very policies you support?

How is your argument nothing more than masturbation at this point? You complain about the tax burden, yet the policies you support are the reason that burden you are complaining about exists! That's masturbatory. You perpetuate a problem in order to complain about it. Why? For attention? Don't even know the motive, and don't even care at this point.

 

[The Derp]

I find most Conservative arguments are masturbatory like the tax burden one. Welfare? That's a good one. Conservatives complain endlessly about welfare, yet they oppose raising the minimum wage which would disqualify millions from receiving welfare. So they are complaining about a problem that they are perpetuating. Masturbation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your "point" seems to be that the rich can buy elections.
Didn't work for Ross Perot in 1992 or 1996, so you were wrong.So stop being obtuse.

They can and do buy elections. Just because Perot lost in 1992 doesn't mean the Koch brothers or Art Pope don't buy political parties instead of having the courage to run themselves. By doing what they do, they can hide in the shadows and pull strings from behind the curtain. You seriously believe that the wealthy don't contribute to political campaigns and the politicians don't serve their interests accordingly??? Really??? Who's being obtuse now?

They can and do buy elections.

Hillary had a lot more donations and spent a lot more, how's the first female President doing?

doesn't mean the Koch brothers or Art Pope don't buy political parties

The Kochs didn't support or donate to Trump.
How's president Gingrich and president Romney doing since they got all those donations from Sheldon?
How's Senator...err...Governor Oberweis doing in Illinois?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yup. And everyone else benefits, because the nasty rich people are picking up a larger portion of the total.

Who is benefiting? Going allllllllllllllllllllllllllll they way back to the first post on this thread shows that no one benefited other than the wealthy from the tax cuts. Do I need to post all those charts again?

So you gloss over the fact that the top tax rate for the wealthy has been cut in half, and instead try to make (another) emotional argument about the unfair tax burden caused by the very policies you support?

How is your argument nothing more than masturbation at this point? You complain about the tax burden, yet the policies you support are the reason that burden you are complaining about exists! That's masturbatory. You perpetuate a problem in order to complain about it. Why? For attention? Don't even know the motive, and don't even care at this point.

Who is benefiting?

Well, if the nasty rich used to pay 20% of total income taxes and then everyone gets a rate cut and now the nasty rich pay 40% of total income taxes, who is losing?

Do I need to post all those charts again?

Only if you promise to misinterpret them again. LOL!

So you gloss over the fact that the top tax rate for the wealthy has been cut in half,

No I don't. I think the top rate should be cut back to the 1988 level of 28%.

You complain about the tax burden

Yes, the government taxes and spends way too much.

yet the policies you support are the reason that burden you are complaining about exists!

Wrong. I'd cut the government burden by at least half.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Yep,

They do two things
1. Yes, steal democracy as the republicans idea is a rigid 18th century let them die and do nothing approach. Why does this limit democracy? Well, within their tiny minds the government not suppose to work for the people.

2. Tax cuts weaken this country and kill off any leadership positions we're ahead in....

 

[The Derp]

Hillary had a lot more donations and spent a lot more, how's the first female President doing?

Hillary didn't have Russians colluding with her to break the law and hack her opponent to employ Active Measures in order to influence the election. And she would have been a fine, moderate, perfectly capable executive. At worst, we would have just gotten more of the same from Obama. I can't speak for others, but I did quite well during Obama. Much better than I did during Bush.

The Kochs didn't support or donate to Trump.

I never said they did, but they did support and donate to the GOP that nominated Trump, who was colluding with Russian spies. Like I said, until we know the full scope and scale of Russian influence in the right-wing, the entire agenda should be put on hold until we can figure out what the hell is going on!

 

[The Derp]

Well, if the nasty rich used to pay 20% of total income taxes and then everyone gets a rate cut and now the nasty rich pay 40% of total income taxes, who is losing?

So they pay 40% of the total income taxes, yet the amount they pay is about 50% less than they used to. So again, you're making a pretty obtuse argument. Is that intentional? Surely you realize what you're doing. It's that kind of intellectual dishonesty that I despise so much from the right-wing. Of course you know that the top marginal tax rate has been cut from 70% to 39.6% (it did get as low as 28% before Clinton and Bush the Elder raised it). What do we have to show for these tax cuts? Nothing other than debt. In fact, household debt post-Reagan exploded to unprecedented levels. Total US household debt is now in excess of 100% of GDP. That trend started almost immediately after Reagan's tax cuts.

No I don't. I think the top rate should be cut back to the 1988 level of 28%.

Why? That seems arbitrary. If cutting the tax rate from 39.6% to 35% led to the worst economic growth since the Depression, the loss of 460,000 net private sector jobs in 8 years, and the erasing of a surplus into 4 -four- record deficits in 8 years that doubled the debt when we could have paid it off, why would cutting it even lower produce better results?

Yes, the government taxes and spends way too much.

So what do you want to cut? Because Medicare, Defense, and Social Security make up most of the federal budget. If you cut all discretionary spending you are still running a deficit plus you have removed government demand from the marketplace with nothing to take its place. So how do you make up for that demand gap? The answer is that you can't. Because the policy is flawed and hinges on magical thinking like trickle-down. Do you also believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and God? Because those are just as magical as your economic policy.

Wrong. I'd cut the government burden by at least half.

So that would mean cutting Medicare, Social Security, and Defense Spending by at least 33% each. Good luck with that.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So they pay 40% of the total income taxes, yet the amount they pay is about 50% less than they used to..

top 1% now pay 40% of collected taxes, in 1980 they paid 20%. Do you understand now??

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hillary had a lot more donations and spent a lot more, how's the first female President doing?

Hillary didn't have Russians colluding with her to break the law and hack her opponent to employ Active Measures in order to influence the election. And she would have been a fine, moderate, perfectly capable executive. At worst, we would have just gotten more of the same from Obama. I can't speak for others, but I did quite well during Obama. Much better than I did during Bush.

The Kochs didn't support or donate to Trump.

I never said they did, but they did support and donate to the GOP that nominated Trump, who was colluding with Russian spies. Like I said, until we know the full scope and scale of Russian influence in the right-wing, the entire agenda should be put on hold until we can figure out what the hell is going on!

Are you sad that the corruption of the DNC and HRC was exposed?
Should that corruption have been kept hidden from the voters?

the entire agenda should be put on hold until we can figure out what the hell is going on!

You'll be dead before you get a clue.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well, if the nasty rich used to pay 20% of total income taxes and then everyone gets a rate cut and now the nasty rich pay 40% of total income taxes, who is losing?

So they pay 40% of the total income taxes, yet the amount they pay is about 50% less than they used to. So again, you're making a pretty obtuse argument. Is that intentional? Surely you realize what you're doing. It's that kind of intellectual dishonesty that I despise so much from the right-wing. Of course you know that the top marginal tax rate has been cut from 70% to 39.6% (it did get as low as 28% before Clinton and Bush the Elder raised it). What do we have to show for these tax cuts? Nothing other than debt. In fact, household debt post-Reagan exploded to unprecedented levels. Total US household debt is now in excess of 100% of GDP. That trend started almost immediately after Reagan's tax cuts.

No I don't. I think the top rate should be cut back to the 1988 level of 28%.

Why? That seems arbitrary. If cutting the tax rate from 39.6% to 35% led to the worst economic growth since the Depression, the loss of 460,000 net private sector jobs in 8 years, and the erasing of a surplus into 4 -four- record deficits in 8 years that doubled the debt when we could have paid it off, why would cutting it even lower produce better results?

Yes, the government taxes and spends way too much.

So what do you want to cut? Because Medicare, Defense, and Social Security make up most of the federal budget. If you cut all discretionary spending you are still running a deficit plus you have removed government demand from the marketplace with nothing to take its place. So how do you make up for that demand gap? The answer is that you can't. Because the policy is flawed and hinges on magical thinking like trickle-down. Do you also believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and God? Because those are just as magical as your economic policy.

Wrong. I'd cut the government burden by at least half.

So that would mean cutting Medicare, Social Security, and Defense Spending by at least 33% each. Good luck with that.

So they pay 40% of the total income taxes, yet the amount they pay is about 50% less than they used to.

No. They actually pay more.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What do we have to show for these tax cuts? Nothing other than debt.

You miss the point completely and liberally. Govt can tax and waste as much money as there is. This is why for example we pay 3-4 times more for health care. The govt is a bureaucratic soviet monopoly designed to waste money. If we switched to capitalist heath care we could pay off national debt in 6 years or if we had passed Newt's Balanced Budget Amendment our debt would be $0 today rather than $20 trillion. Do you know why liberals have killed off all 30 Balanced Budget Amendments since Jefferson's first? Because it might interfere with more spending on crippling welfare with which to buy votes??

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well, if the nasty rich used to pay 20% of total income taxes and then everyone gets a rate cut and now the nasty rich pay 40% of total income taxes, who is losing?

So they pay 40% of the total income taxes, yet the amount they pay is about 50% less than they used to. So again, you're making a pretty obtuse argument. Is that intentional? Surely you realize what you're doing. It's that kind of intellectual dishonesty that I despise so much from the right-wing. Of course you know that the top marginal tax rate has been cut from 70% to 39.6% (it did get as low as 28% before Clinton and Bush the Elder raised it). What do we have to show for these tax cuts? Nothing other than debt. In fact, household debt post-Reagan exploded to unprecedented levels. Total US household debt is now in excess of 100% of GDP. That trend started almost immediately after Reagan's tax cuts.

No I don't. I think the top rate should be cut back to the 1988 level of 28%.

Why? That seems arbitrary. If cutting the tax rate from 39.6% to 35% led to the worst economic growth since the Depression, the loss of 460,000 net private sector jobs in 8 years, and the erasing of a surplus into 4 -four- record deficits in 8 years that doubled the debt when we could have paid it off, why would cutting it even lower produce better results?

Yes, the government taxes and spends way too much.

So what do you want to cut? Because Medicare, Defense, and Social Security make up most of the federal budget. If you cut all discretionary spending you are still running a deficit plus you have removed government demand from the marketplace with nothing to take its place. So how do you make up for that demand gap? The answer is that you can't. Because the policy is flawed and hinges on magical thinking like trickle-down. Do you also believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and God? Because those are just as magical as your economic policy.

Wrong. I'd cut the government burden by at least half.

So that would mean cutting Medicare, Social Security, and Defense Spending by at least 33% each. Good luck with that.

Why? That seems arbitrary.

Okay, make it 25%.

cutting the tax rate from 39.6% to 35% led to the worst economic growth since the Depression,

There you go again.
If you get a chance, and a clue, explain how cutting taxes hurts economic growth.

and the erasing of a surplus

You realize the surplus was caused by the unsustainable internet bubble as well as Gingrich putting the breaks on Bubba's spending plans, don't you?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Tax cuts serve two goals; 1) they transfer wealth to the top, and more importantly,

Actually when you allow someone to keep his money it is not transferred to anybody. How is it possible that you don't know that???

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Tax cuts serve two goals; 1).......................... 2) they manufacture deficits that are used as an excuse to cut spending.

most importantly they serve our Founder's goal of preserving freedom from big liberal govt. Too complicated for you?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But the plutocrats are more powerful than ever. That part of your comment is correct.

and who are the plutocrats?? The CEO's of the world's top 10 million companies?? Who??

 

[The Derp]

Actually when you allow someone to keep his money it is not transferred to anybody. How is it possible that you don't know that???

Hold on a second! The reasoning behind the tax cuts was not philosophical. The tax cuts were sold to us as a economic argument, not a philsophical one. You only started using this line of reasoning when alllllllllllllllll the economic arguments in favor of your ideology turned out to be steaming piles of bantha poodoo. The original claim was that tax cuts would generate so much economic activity, there wouldn't be a need to cut any spending because look at all the economic activity! When that turned out to be wrong, the goalposts moved to tax cuts just need time to work, give them a chance! When that turned out to be wrong, the goalposts moved yet again to tax cuts with spending cuts will somehow magically translate to economic growth that would lead us awash in revenues so we didn't have to cut spending(?). When that load of horsecrap was wrong, the goalposts were moved yet again, this time framing the debate as one of philosophy vs. one of economics. So like the typical hysterical Conservative you are, you sought to make an emotional argument when before, the argument was economic. So why the sudden abandonment of the economic principles? Is this just an exercise in narcissism from you? Why do you feel compelled to abandon any and all of the economic arguments made in support of the dumb policies you are advocating here, in order to make a highly emotional argument of hysterics? Is it because you just don't have the knowledge to have a substantive debate? Do you try to make things emotional and personal because you are emotional yourself? Are you on your period or something? What gives?

 

[The Derp]

most importantly they serve our Founder's goal of preserving freedom from big liberal govt. Too complicated for you?

So you are admitting tax cuts are designed to manufacture deficits in order to achieve spending cuts for programs you are ideologically opposed to but lack the courage to repeal through legislation? Because it sure seems like it, pal.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

most importantly they serve our Founder's goal of preserving freedom from big liberal govt. Too complicated for you?

So you are admitting tax cuts are designed to manufacture deficits in order to achieve spending cuts for programs you are ideologically opposed to but lack the courage to repeal through legislation? Because it sure seems like it, pal.

If you don't like the concept of freedom why not move to Cuba rather than subvert America???

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

most importantly they serve our Founder's goal of preserving freedom from big liberal govt. Too complicated for you?

So you are admitting tax cuts are designed to manufacture deficits in order to achieve spending cuts for programs you are ideologically opposed to but lack the courage to repeal through legislation? Because it sure seems like it, pal.

It has nothing to do with courage the simple reality is the Democrats have made millions of Americans hopelessly dependent children who will always vote for more increases in welfare but this does not mean that makes it legitimate

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Actually when you allow someone to keep his money it is not transferred to anybody. How is it possible that you don't know that???

Hold on a second! The reasoning behind the tax cuts was not philosophical. ?

America is based on the philosophy of freedom this is why the Democrats spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb and why they elected Obama to give