Trump's tax plan.....You judge!

[JoeNormal]

Trump doesn't deal with intricate details. That's not how he rolls. He flings shit against the wall to see what will stick.

the very definition of demagoguery is to simply tell folks what they WANT to hear, regardless if those "policies" have any basis in reality.

Absolutely.

 

[JoeNormal]

Trump doesn't deal with intricate details.

Ah, so you're just lying - democrat.

That's not how he rolls. He flings shit against the wall to see what will stick. At this point, it's enough to know that he's a plutocrat who evidence suggests hasn't paid taxes in 20 years and who would like to reduce taxes not for any benefit for average Americans but as a favor to the already wealthy.

Now, tell us how in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, how that's going to improve the jobs outlook here.

At this point it's enough to know that you're a demagogue spewing slander and libel against political enemies with utterly nothing to base your idiocy on.

You do this because your masters have programmed you to be OUTRAGED. OUTRAGED I TELLS YA, that the crook in the hip pocket of Wall Street, Hillary Clinton, didn't win the election for the ruling 1% elite.

I never said he had worked out intricate details dumbass. That's all on you and in spite of about 10 posts today explaining how I don't particularly like democrats, you insist that I'm a Hillary supporter. Goddamn, you have to be one to the most learning disabled dipshits on this site (and that's saying something).

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
I never said he had worked out intricate details dumbass.

Trump isn't even in OFFICE, Herr Goebbels, yet you are spewing complete fabrications of his "tax cuts."

You have ZERO knowledge of what the Trump tax policy will be, and are simply lashing out because your side lost.

That's all on you and in spite of about 10 posts today explaining how I don't particularly like democrats, you insist that I'm a Hillary supporter. Goddamn, you have to be one to the most learning disabled dipshits on this site (and that's saying something).

Actually, I insist that you're a shit flinging feral baboon. You have no regard for facts or reality, you just know that you hate those who are not supporting the party....

 

[AntonToo]

I love these reports, have any of these "experts" been right about anything?

WTF are you smoking?

You know we actually did this tax cutting thing before and have since collected record low revenues, which account for significant portion of our accumulated debt.

Show me the chart of fed govt revenue

I did, but you of course don't like the size of economy adjusted version that is the standard for serious comparison, It just doesn't fit your ridiculous free lunch myths that I paid less taxes while government collected more revenues.

You pointed that out to liberals while W was President, right?



I crack myself up ...

You are a moron. Tax revenue is totatl taxes, did they go up or down? Its not a difficult question.

You call me moron..and follow up with this moronic statement.

Tax receipts always go up, because of inflation, because economy always grows long term, and fluctuates year to year strongly effecting revenues. That's why only ignoramuses directly compare revenues in dollars without through-business cycle consideration

 

[P@triot]

Trump Tax Plan Gives 47% Of Cuts To Richest 1%, New Analysis Finds

According to the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, Trump’s latest proposals would cut taxes by $6.2 trillion over the next decade, with 47% of all cuts in 2017 going to the top 1%.

The tax cuts that Trump is now proposing are smaller than the $9.5 trillion in cuts he floated last year, but are also more tilted in favor of the wealthy.

Under Trump’s new plan, every income group would still get tax cuts, but upper income households would receive the most relief, not only in dollars, but as a percentage of income.

Trump Tax Plan Gives 47% Of Cuts To Richest 1%, New Analysis Finds

Thank God! That class has been screwed over royally by the Dumbocrats for 8 straight years now. It's about time someone lets them come up for air and catch their breath. Now the economy will go into full throttle as those people spend lavishly and create jobs.

 

[AntonToo]

It is a free lunch. Lower rates do create more revenue.

Can you find a single respectable economist to support that view?

No you can't, because IT IS COUNTERFACTUAL RIGHTWING BULLSHIT.

There is not a single way you are macro-economist, NOT POSSIBLE to be both a professional in this field and as ******* ignorant and stupid as you are.

You are, with a straight face, proposing that there is an easy peasy free lunch out there, so people can pay less tax and government can collect more revenues, but economists, CONSERVATIVE economists no less, are just too liberal to appreciate it.

I don't believe your magic tax-cut bullshit, Republicans don't believe it, conservative economists don't believe it...there are only one type of people that buy this nonsense - ignorant, naive, intellectually underdeveloped politicos like you.

 

[P@triot]

It is a free lunch. Lower rates do create more revenue.

Can you find a single respectable economist to support that view? No you can't, because IT IS COUNTERFACTUAL RIGHTWING BULLSHIT. There is not a single way you are macro-economist, NOT POSSIBLE to be both a professional in this field and as ******* ignorant as you are.

Every respectable economist supports that fact - as does history. Watching you lose your shit because you think it results in less gub'mnt handouts for you is as funny as it is tragic.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Every respectable economist supports that fact - as does history. Watching you lose your shit because you think it results in less gub'mnt handouts for you is as funny as it is tragic.

Get 10 economists together for lunch and 3 of them will deny that the chicken they're eating is a type of poultry....

Some are delusional, others like Krugman are outright frauds.

 

[AntonToo]

It is a free lunch. Lower rates do create more revenue.

Can you find a single respectable economist to support that view? No you can't, because IT IS COUNTERFACTUAL RIGHTWING BULLSHIT. There is not a single way you are macro-economist, NOT POSSIBLE to be both a professional in this field and as ******* ignorant as you are.

Every respectable economist supports that fact - as does history. Watching you lose your shit because you think it results in less gub'mnt handouts for you is as funny as it is tragic.

MADE UP BULLSHIT, WITH A SIDE OF STUPID.


YOUR BULLSHIT:

I can go up and down the list of people and economists behind Bush's tax cut policies that will tell you straight up they are certainly not self-financing.

You know that guy Greenspan? When asked if tax-cuts pay for themselves he didn't mince his words: “They do not,” said Greenspan. “I’m very much in favor of tax cuts but not with borrowed money"

Greenspan Calls for Repeal of Bush Tax Cuts


Here is ex-Chair of Economic Advisors to Bush, Andrew Samwick, in response to Bush's SoTU address, that claimed tax-cuts helped grow receipts:

You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues … You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.


"There is no real dispute among economists that broad-based federal income tax cuts reduce revenue (except when tax rates are much higher than they are now)," said Alan D. Viard of the conservative American Enterprise Institute. "Revenue is lower than it would be without the Bush tax cuts -- liberal and conservative economists are in accord on this question."


Haines: Tax Cuts Do Contribute to Nation's Deficit

=========================================

YOUR STUPID:

If government could do MORE handouts at lower rates, by collecting MORE revenues - WHY THE **** WOULD I BE AGAINST IT?

 

[AntonToo]

Every respectable economist supports that fact - as does history. Watching you lose your shit because you think it results in less gub'mnt handouts for you is as funny as it is tragic.

Get 10 economists together for lunch and 3 of them will deny that the chicken they're eating is a type of poultry....

Some are delusional, others like Krugman are outright frauds.

Except when it comes to Bush's tax-cuts, or any such broad tax-cuts at current rates being self-financing, on THAT they don't disagree.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Except when it comes to Bush's tax-cuts, or any such broad tax-cuts at current rates being self-financing, on THAT they don't disagree.

How the **** would you know?

Other than KOS telling you what they interpreted Krugman to be babbling about, you've never been exposed to an economist.

 

[AntonToo]

Except when it comes to Bush's tax-cuts, or any such broad tax-cuts at current rates being self-financing, on THAT they don't disagree.

How the **** would you know?

Other than KOS telling you what they interpreted Krugman to be babbling about, you've never been exposed to an economist.

I know because I'm not ******* ignorant and have a smidge of critical thinking not to buy into simplistic free lunch bullshit, where supposedly everybody can pay less in taxes while government collects more revenues.

When even conservative economists and Republicans say that you rwingers are full of shit, maybe it's time to re-evaluate?

You fools can't even find one respectable economist who supports the notion that Bush's tax cuts were self-financing and yet you still believe it - to me that is INSANE.

 

[kaz]

Dynamic effects are a small fraction (~20%) of first order revenue reduction. So instead of $10 Trillion you can argue it will be more like 8T and I'll let you do it too....as soon as you conservatives also start arguing that spending this deficit will suppress should be adjusted for dynamic effects too....which you will not, so I will not agree to such standard of accounting on revenues side.

Yes, I am a fiscal conservative. Once again you show liberals are all about money. It's the only measuring stick for you. Am I going to help you get other people's money or try to help keep you away. You're consumed with greed, and you constantly demonstrate that

My only thought about your comment is - WTF???

I'll try to dumb it down for you, though I may not be able to dumb it down all the way to you.

I'm socially more liberal than you are, I'm more small military than you are.

Yet you think I'm a "conservative." The only thing I'm more conservative than you is money. Yet that's the only thing you hear, your obsession with money driven by your greed. Getting your hands on other people's money is the only thing you measure me by because money is the only thing you really care about. The rest is just noise to you

Our exchange so far:

Kaz: Tax cuts have some dynamic feedback.
Anton: But they make for a small fraction of their static reduction to revenues.
Kaz: You are so ******* greedy!

WHAT. THE. **** is wrong with you Kaz?

So what you are saying is other factors effect tax revenue, not just the tax rate? Now we're getting somewhere a liberal who doewnt see everything in.a.vaccum....baby steps

very tiny ones ...

 

[buckeye45_73]

WTF are you smoking?

You know we actually did this tax cutting thing before and have since collected record low revenues, which account for significant portion of our accumulated debt.

Show me the chart of fed govt revenue

I did, but you of course don't like the size of economy adjusted version that is the standard for serious comparison, It just doesn't fit your ridiculous free lunch myths that I paid less taxes while government collected more revenues.

You pointed that out to liberals while W was President, right?



I crack myself up ...

You are a moron. Tax revenue is totatl taxes, did they go up or down? Its not a difficult question.

You call me moron..and follow up with this moronic statement.

Tax receipts always go up, because of inflation, because economy always grows long term, and fluctuates year to year strongly effecting revenues. That's why only ignoramuses directly compare revenues in dollars without through-business cycle consideration

You vlcan use inflation on a 4 year cycle, jesus you're dumb.

In 8 years the tax revenued doubled, thats not inflationx its growth. Several things may effect it, but the tax cuts worked

How?
Well it doesnt just double all the time, even if you raise taxes

 

[buckeye45_73]

Yes, I am a fiscal conservative. Once again you show liberals are all about money. It's the only measuring stick for you. Am I going to help you get other people's money or try to help keep you away. You're consumed with greed, and you constantly demonstrate that

My only thought about your comment is - WTF???

I'll try to dumb it down for you, though I may not be able to dumb it down all the way to you.

I'm socially more liberal than you are, I'm more small military than you are.

Yet you think I'm a "conservative." The only thing I'm more conservative than you is money. Yet that's the only thing you hear, your obsession with money driven by your greed. Getting your hands on other people's money is the only thing you measure me by because money is the only thing you really care about. The rest is just noise to you

Our exchange so far:

Kaz: Tax cuts have some dynamic feedback.
Anton: But they make for a small fraction of their static reduction to revenues.
Kaz: You are so ******* greedy!

WHAT. THE. **** is wrong with you Kaz?

So what you are saying is other factors effect tax revenue, not just the tax rate? Now we're getting somewhere a liberal who doewnt see everything in.a.vaccum....baby steps

very tiny ones ...

True but he just got a dose of the truth, if you see that, you'll see the light eventually

 

[kaz]

You think I'm cut and spend? Wow, you're a bigger idiot than I thought. Yes, Toots, I'm a big government libertarian. Wow, can you find your ass with both hands and a map?

I'm all cut and cut, baby ..

I'm not talking about YOU. Libertarians are fools and dreamers. You're not even a flea on an elephant's ass. We're talking about Trump.

Gotcha, we have this crazy idea we can take care of ourselves and we don't need government to do it for us. Wow, when I say that out loud, even I think I'm nuts.

You know, there is a contradiction in your ideas. You think people drool and are too stupid to pay their own bills. However, what what is government made of? Um ... people ... Didn't think that one through, did you?

 

[kaz]

Why do you think Obama continued the Bush tax cuts? What was his reason?

He couldn't get tax increases for the rich past an obstructionist Congress. He caved way too soon and for me, that was when my support for him ended.

Republicans are "obstructionist" when they won't do things they oppose, got it. So now any time Democrats oppose Trump you're going to call them "obstructionist," right?

I will if it's as childish as what the Republicans were doing. I have no special love for the Dems.

I appreciate the attitude, but can you provide a better example of what the Republicans did that was "childish?" Your first example was they didn't vote for something Republicans always oppose, which is not childish and you'd never demand Democrats do. Give some examples of things they opposed because Democrats wanted to do it

There are a number of examples. The worst two I can think of off the top of my head were the debt ceiling brinksmanship and the refusal to even consider any of the medicare-for-all proposals that had been mandated when Obama was elected. Even when the Dems had a super majority, the Republicans were doing everything they could to throw a wrench. The tax increases came quite a bit later and were the last straw.

Typical brain dead answer. Fiscal conservatives fight every debt ceiling increase and seriously, if it weren't for Obama they'd expand medical welfare for all to everyone? It's the typical moron answer you give two liberal things Republicans always fight and say gosh, it's OBAMA.

You're O fer. Try again. What did Republicans oppose they would support if it wasn't for Obama? Maybe go in your head this time, not off the top because you missed

 

[AntonToo]

Typical brain dead answer. Fiscal conservatives

"Fiscal conservatives"...are mostly braindead retards that think that cutting taxes reduces deficits.

 

[kaz]

It is a free lunch. Lower rates do create more revenue.

Can you find a single respectable economist to support that view?

No you can't, because IT IS COUNTERFACTUAL RIGHTWING BULLSHIT.

There is not a single way you are macro-economist, NOT POSSIBLE to be both a professional in this field and as ******* ignorant and stupid as you are.

You are, with a straight face, proposing that there is an easy peasy free lunch out there, so people can pay less tax and government can collect more revenues, but economists, CONSERVATIVE economists no less, are just too liberal to appreciate it.

I don't believe your magic tax-cut bullshit, Republicans don't believe it, conservative economists don't believe it...there are only one type of people that buy this nonsense - ignorant, naive, intellectually underdeveloped politicos like you.

And yet again you can't read, you keep changing what I said. I said cutting taxes increases revenue. Deficits are also a function of spending.

And you don't know what you are talking about. You're just parroting lawyers. Here's two people who knew that. JFK and Reagan. And it worked both times. Under Reagan Federal tax receipts ... doubled ...

 

[AntonToo]

You don't know what you are talking about. You're just parroting lawyers. Here's two people who knew that. JFK and Reagan. And it worked both times

LOL, ok here is David Stockman, Reagan's budget director to explain to you your intellectual depravity:

"The second unhappy change in the American economy has been the extraordinary growth of our public debt. In 1970 it was just 40 percent of gross domestic product, or about $425 billion. When it reaches $18 trillion, it will be 40 times greater than in 1970. This debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts."

Haines: Tax Cuts Do Contribute to Nation's Deficit