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

[CowboyTed]

Its funny how right wing tards blame all the debt on Democrats, and vice versa, and none of them ever catch on it is both parties doing.

When Republicans owned both houses of Congress, and the White House, and the Supreme Court, they spent like drunken sailors in a whorehouse.

And now Trump and his GOP Congress are going to add another ten trillion to the debt, give or take.

Dubya was a creature controlled by the international bankers. His internationalist views served the interests of Morgan Stanley, Chase, Goldman Sachs, et al. Bush was more than willing to spend every dime the middle class has or ever will have to enrich those who put and kept him in power.

What you and the other leftists here cannot grasp Guno, is that bad acts by Bush do not excuse bad acts by your beloved Obama.

What will be your excuse for voting for Trump....

 

[Uncensored2008]

Its funny how right wing tards blame all the debt on Democrats, and vice versa, and none of them ever catch on it is both parties doing.

When Republicans owned both houses of Congress, and the White House, and the Supreme Court, they spent like drunken sailors in a whorehouse.

And now Trump and his GOP Congress are going to add another ten trillion to the debt, give or take.

Dubya was a creature controlled by the international bankers. His internationalist views served the interests of Morgan Stanley, Chase, Goldman Sachs, et al. Bush was more than willing to spend every dime the middle class has or ever will have to enrich those who put and kept him in power.

What you and the other leftists here cannot grasp Guno, is that bad acts by Bush do not excuse bad acts by your beloved Obama.

What will be your excuse for voting for Trump....

I would have had to have voted for Trump to worry about it.

That said, I am thrilled that Hillary lost, the corruption needed to stop.

 

[edthecynic]

You lefties said the same thing about Reagan, but tax receipts INCREASED under his plan

Bullshit, tax revenues went down after his tax cuts and up after his many tax increases and deficit spending.

Lying again edtheliar?

No surprise - democrat.

{
However, the numbers, crunched by Heritage's Brian Riedl, show otherwise (see chart below). In 1980, the last year before the tax cuts, tax revenues were $956 billion (in constant 1996 dollars).

Revenues exceeded that 1980 level in eight of the next 10 years. Annual revenues over the next decade averaged $102 billion above their 1980 level (in constant 1996 dollars).

Any increase in budget deficits was therefore the result of spending increases rather than tax cut-induced revenue decreases.



(click image to enlarge)

More resources:

1. The Argument for Reality-based Scoring (March 29, 2002, WebMemo).
2. Issues 2002: Tax Reform for Economic Growth (October 25, 2002, WebMemo); which features the following Q&A:

Q: What policies would create a more robust economy?
A: Lower tax rates create better economic conditions. It's simple: lower tax rates = more robust economy = more federal revenue.}

Tax Cuts Increase Federal Revenues

Reagan's tax cuts were passed in August of 1981, so they had no effect on economic growth in 1981, so 1981 is the true base year, and revenue declined the next 2 years even with the 5% retroactive reduction in 1981 revenue. IOW the 1981 revenue was actually 5% higher before the retroactive 5% tax cut took place. The 1981 tax cut being retroactive only cut revenue in 1981, it stimulated no growth throughout the year, so your chart in pontificating 1980 as the base year before tax cuts is as dishonest as you.

 

[edthecynic]

Now that is typical CON$ervoFascist revisionism!
Reagan welshed on the spending cuts worked out between Dole and O'Neil because some of the agreed upon cuts were to Reagan's pork barrel Star Wars boondoggle/slush fund.

The issue you have edtheliar, is that you are a liar - democrat. Regardless of whether spending cuts were instituted (they were) the fact remains that federal tax receipts went UP after the Reagan tax cuts, despite your blatant lies. (democrat)

Defense spending increase indeed consumed the revenue increases and more, they also lead to the defeat of the USSR, which was at the time pointing nuclear weapons at us. Remember edtheliar, Jimmy Carter (certified as a better president than Obama, who now holds the title of worst in history) declared that the USSR was vastly superior to America and that we MUST appease them due to the inevitability of their eventual victory over America. Yes, you democrat about that now, but it is historical fact from 1977.

Reagan cut deals with the democrats to increase or maintain social spending in exchange for military spending, a double whammy of spending But despite all of the democrats you tell, we must remind you that your filthy party had control of congress for much of Reagan's term, and congress controls spending.

I love how you call me a liar every time I tell you the truth.
Thank you.
The Deal was between O'Neil and Senator Bob Dole (R) because Dole was Senate president since the Republicans were the Senate majority. So your scummy party had just as much control of Congress as the Dems, actually more as the Senate is more powerful than the House.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Now that is typical CON$ervoFascist revisionism!
Reagan welshed on the spending cuts worked out between Dole and O'Neil because some of the agreed upon cuts were to Reagan's pork barrel Star Wars boondoggle/slush fund.

The issue you have edtheliar, is that you are a liar - democrat. Regardless of whether spending cuts were instituted (they were) the fact remains that federal tax receipts went UP after the Reagan tax cuts, despite your blatant lies. (democrat)

Defense spending increase indeed consumed the revenue increases and more, they also lead to the defeat of the USSR, which was at the time pointing nuclear weapons at us. Remember edtheliar, Jimmy Carter (certified as a better president than Obama, who now holds the title of worst in history) declared that the USSR was vastly superior to America and that we MUST appease them due to the inevitability of their eventual victory over America. Yes, you democrat about that now, but it is historical fact from 1977.

Reagan cut deals with the democrats to increase or maintain social spending in exchange for military spending, a double whammy of spending But despite all of the democrats you tell, we must remind you that your filthy party had control of congress for much of Reagan's term, and congress controls spending.

I love how you call me a liar every time I tell you the truth.
Thank you.
The Deal was between O'Neil and Senator Bob Dole (R) because Dole was Senate president since the Republicans were the Senate majority. So your scummy party had just as much control of Congress as the Dems, actually more as the Senate is more powerful than the House.

Repeat after me, edtheliar, all spending bills must originate in the ___________

 

[edthecynic]

I always find it amusing that Libs like to claim Reagan gave tax breaks to the rich and milked the poor, when the facts are from 1981-1989 the percentage of tax dollars collected from the top 1% went from about 18% to over 25%

What I always find amusing is how know-it-all CON$ don't know that there is a piece of information conspicuously missing from that deliberately deceptive half truth making it a whole lie.
Obviously that info is deliberately misleading without knowing how much the top 1%'s income increased over the same period. The fact that it was deliberately left out should tell you that it was a lot more than the 7% increase in tax dollars, which is why I was not surprised to find out the income of the top 1% had grown 60% from 1981 to 1989.

 

[P@triot]

YOUR STUPID:

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

Bwahahahahaha!!! Oh the irony of that post. The word "your" shows possession you high school dropout. As in your cellphone. The word "you're" is a contraction for you are. As in you're really stupid antontoo.

Now, to answer your question (see...possession): for the same reason idiot progressives support all failed economic policies: because you're (see....contraction for you are) more interested in punsihing people who are more successful than you out of spite and envy than you are in seeing others thrive and prosper.

 

[edthecynic]

Repeat after me, edtheliar, all spending bills must originate in the ___________

Gee, what a surprise, another half truth, whole lie. NOT!

Repeat after me the part you left out of the origination clause, "but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as in the case of other bills."

 

[JoeNormal]

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

I can remember a time when Republicans were actually the adults in the room. I used to highly admire William F. Buckley and can honestly say (with some embarrassment now) that I voted for Reagan twice and papa Bush once. Republicans weren't always ill tempered toddlers. Are you really that young or were you just too clueless in your youth to have paid any attention?

 

[P@triot]

Repeat after me, edtheliar, all spending bills must originate in the ___________

Gee, what a surprise, another half truth, whole lie. NOT!

Repeat after me the part you left out of the origination clause, "but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as in the case of other bills."

You mean the part that doesn't even remotely dispute what Uncensored said?!? Reading comprehension Ed. Reading comprehension.

 

[edthecynic]

cutting taxes increases revenue.

Never has in the past, never will in the future, with the only exception of payroll taxes. Cutting payroll taxes are the only tax cuts that grow the economy.

Liberal lawyers oppose tax cuts even though they grow revenue for two reasons:

1) Even though it grows the size of government, it grows the economy even further which reduces the power they wield over the economy

2) Even though the poor get richer, to wage an effective class war you need to not only reward the poor with $$$ you have to take money from the rich to punish them, not just fund the government

You oppose tax cuts because the liberal lawyers said that and you're a parrot

First of all, I made it clear that I don't oppose payroll tax cuts, so you make a ass of yourself again by mindlessly parroting your programming without ever reading anything for comprehension! I'm only against STUPID tax cuts like STUPID Republicans always propose and STUPID Trump is proposing.

So finally I say a cut in payroll taxes would give the American wage earner an immediate increase in take home pay to spend on a regular basis without costing the employer a single penny stimulating demand and creating jobs to fill that increased demand, and the businesses that employ Americans would have an immediate cut in the cost of labor without downsizing or outsourcing a single American job as well as saving the cost of compliance. The businesses that employ the most AMERICANS will get the most benefit from payroll tax cuts, exactly the group of people you would want to benefit most from tax cuts.

Obviously payroll tax cuts give the most bang for the buck. Only when all payroll taxes are eliminated should any other tax cut be considered.

 

[edthecynic]

Repeat after me, edtheliar, all spending bills must originate in the ___________

Gee, what a surprise, another half truth, whole lie. NOT!

Repeat after me the part you left out of the origination clause, "but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as in the case of other bills."

You mean the part that doesn't even remotely dispute what Uncensored said?!? Reading comprehension Ed. Reading comprehension.

No the part that included the power Republican Senate leader Dole held over the budget that Uncensored lied about Dems having total control.

 

[kaz]

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

Note he didn't address the point we're debating.

You actually don't grasp the difference between deficits and tax revenue, do you?

What Stockton was saying that tax cuts aren't enough if you don't control spending.

Reagan agreed to trade Tip domestic spending increases for military increases. Stockton was addressing that

BULLSHIT - you are just conflating two separate factors.

-deficit = revenues-spending

Yes, if you offset revenues LOSS with spending cut, deficit does not increase, but you fools are stuck on denying that tax-cuts actually do cause revenue loss, so wtf is the point in talking about PAYING for these non-losses?

You actually can't read, can you? Other than on a cursory level. I'm tired of correcting your misstating what I said. Though at this point I'm thinking you're lying, you just have very low reading comprehension

I can read just fine. Not only that, I can also put up a rational objection to your stupid argument.

I didn't mis-state anything:

If tax cuts are self financing (as you claim) then any talk about offsetting such NON LOSS is nonsense.


What of this do you dispute?

So if you can "read fine" you're saying that you are lying?

 

[kaz]

Never has in the past, never will in the future, with the only exception of payroll taxes. Cutting payroll taxes are the only tax cuts that grow the economy.

It has in the past, but it wasn't ever because if secondary economic effects tax-cuts bought. It was because at high enough rates people would spend more money on accountants and lawyers and less on paying taxes. Who in their right mind will pay 90% tax? But at current low rates these pleads are ridiculous.

Current "low" rates, LOL. Obviously you're in the 50% who don't pay taxes ...

Obviously you are a retard. I pay plenty of taxes with around $200,000 income. So stfu.

I make $12 trillion. Funny thing on the Internet, you can say whatever you want. You're not demonstrating any knowledge on the subject, that is a lot more convincing

I see, so I have no income and you make 12 Trillion.

I can say anything I want, but I also have some self respect not to lie to strangers on anonymous message board.

Actually I made $23 Trillion. And who said "no income?" You're lying again.

You're a waste of time. You're an idiot who can't read. If you were right and you knew it, you wouldn't keep changing what I said, it wouldn't be necessary

 

[kaz]

The recession started in the third quarter of 2000 and ended in 2003. And it was actually a hard recession.

LIAR!

The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001. A peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession. The determination of a peak date in March is thus a determination that the expansion that began in March 1992ended in March 2001 and a recession began.

I addressed that, you cut it from my quote

You addressed nothing. You only pontificated a load of bullshit, that the First Bush Recession started in 2000 with a positive GDP and ended in 2003, when it actually started in March 2001 when GDP peaked and ended November 2001 when GDP hit its trough.

Peak
March 2001(I)
The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001. A peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession. The determination of a peak date in March is thus a determination that the expansion that began in March 1991 ended in March 2001 and a recession began. The expansion lasted exactly 10 years, the longest in the NBER's chronology

A recession is a significant decline in activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, visible in industrial production, employment, real income, and wholesale-retail trade. A recession begins just after the economy reaches a peak of activity and ends as the economy reaches its trough.

Trough
November 2001 (IV)
CAMBRIDGE July 17 -- The Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research met yesterday. At its meeting, the committee determined that a trough in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in November 2001. The trough marks the end of the recession that began in March 2001 and the beginning of an expansion. The recession lasted 8 months, which is slightly less than average for recessions since World War II.

In determining that a trough occurred in November 2001, the committee did not conclude that economic conditions since that month have been favorable or that the economy has returned to operating at normal capacity. Rather, the committee determined only that the recession ended and a recovery began in that month. A recession is a period of falling economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales. The trough marks the end of the declining phase and the start of the rising phase of the business cycle. Economic activity is typically below normal in the early stages of an expansion, and it sometimes remains so well into the expansion.

The committee waited to make the determination of the trough date until it was confident that any future downturn in the economy would be considered a new recession and not a continuation of the recession that began in March 2001.

Contraction
8 Months

That's right, Ed, it's my job to prove that you're wrong while not violating the inherent truth of liberalism. Actually, I don't have to do that, liberalism is wrong, every ******* time

 

[kaz]

Liberal lawyers

...AND CONSERVATIVE ECONOMISTS, reject the notion that tax-cuts at current rates are self-financing.

Bull shit. And no one thought David Stockton was a "conservative" economist

lol ok who IS a conservative economist?

You ask me as if I give a shit, I'm not a conservative. Pull down your dress, your **** is showing

 

[kaz]

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

I can remember a time when Republicans were actually the adults in the room. I used to highly admire William F. Buckley and can honestly say (with some embarrassment now) that I voted for Reagan twice and papa Bush once. Republicans weren't always ill tempered toddlers. Are you really that young or were you just too clueless in your youth to have paid any attention?

Yes, every Democrat was a Republican until 2000 when Democrats tried to steal the election and failed. There actually was no Democrat party until then. It's remarkable.

You own guns too, that's how you know gun owners are sick bastards. Another remarkable phenomenon

 

[kaz]

cutting taxes increases revenue.

Never has in the past, never will in the future, with the only exception of payroll taxes. Cutting payroll taxes are the only tax cuts that grow the economy.

Liberal lawyers oppose tax cuts even though they grow revenue for two reasons:

1) Even though it grows the size of government, it grows the economy even further which reduces the power they wield over the economy

2) Even though the poor get richer, to wage an effective class war you need to not only reward the poor with $$$ you have to take money from the rich to punish them, not just fund the government

You oppose tax cuts because the liberal lawyers said that and you're a parrot

First of all, I made it clear that I don't oppose payroll tax cuts, so you make a ass of yourself again by mindlessly parroting your programming without ever reading anything for comprehension! I'm only against STUPID tax cuts like STUPID Republicans always propose and STUPID Trump is proposing.

So finally I say a cut in payroll taxes would give the American wage earner an immediate increase in take home pay to spend on a regular basis without costing the employer a single penny stimulating demand and creating jobs to fill that increased demand, and the businesses that employ Americans would have an immediate cut in the cost of labor without downsizing or outsourcing a single American job as well as saving the cost of compliance. The businesses that employ the most AMERICANS will get the most benefit from payroll tax cuts, exactly the group of people you would want to benefit most from tax cuts.

Obviously payroll tax cuts give the most bang for the buck. Only when all payroll taxes are eliminated should any other tax cut be considered.

When did I say you oppose "payroll tax cuts?" Of course you do, it's the one tax people who get their life funded by government still pay.

There is something seriously wrong with you

 

[AntonToo]

YOUR STUPID:

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

Bwahahahahaha!!! Oh the irony of that post. The word "your" shows possession you high school dropout. As in your cellphone. The word "you're" is a contraction for you are. As in you're really stupid antontoo.

Now, to answer your question (see...possession): for the same reason idiot progressives support all failed economic policies: because you're (see....contraction for you are) more interested in punsihing people who are more successful than you out of spite and envy than you are in seeing others thrive and prosper.

Yes dumbass, YOUR bullshit and YOUR stupid. Stupid that prevents from carrying on a rational conversation.

 

[AntonToo]

Liberal lawyers

...AND CONSERVATIVE ECONOMISTS, reject the notion that tax-cuts at current rates are self-financing.

Bull shit. And no one thought David Stockton was a "conservative" economist

lol ok who IS a conservative economist?

You ask me as if I give a shit, I'm not a conservative. Pull down your dress, your **** is showing

You are so pathetic.