Where are the Fiscal Conservatives? GOP Tax Bill Adds $1.7T to Debt

[OKTexas]

The Bush economy did pretty well until the housing bubble burst and everyone knows who's fault that was.
.

...You are badly confused - it was doing well because economic bubbles have UPSIDES before the explosion of downsides begins.

And good ole weeny eater barney swore Freddie and Fanny were doing just fine. LMAO


.

 

[AntonToo]

The Bush economy did pretty well until the housing bubble burst and everyone knows who's fault that was.
.

...You are badly confused - it was doing well because economic bubbles have UPSIDES before the explosion of downsides begins.

And good ole weeny eater barney swore Freddie and Fanny were doing just fine. LMAO
.

That's not a sane reply.

Bush economy did well on real estate and finance fumes until the whole thing exploded - you did not so much as try to dispute that.

 

[AntonToo]

"Expands dramatically".

So your hopes are resting on a pipe dream!

And STILL no criticism of increased debt by the GOP!

The last three quarters GDP were almost 50% higher than your dear leaders average. If they get an increase of another 30% to 4% growth that will put it at 100% of maobamas average. I'd call that dramatic and totally plausible, it could possibly be higher. If that were the case there would be no increase in the debt if spending stays at current levels.


.

Yeah those bush cuts lead to such a strong economy

Deflecting already? The Bush economy did pretty well until the housing bubble burst and everyone knows who's fault that was.


.

I'm poInting out tax cuts do not guarantee any growth. The times there has been growth there was lots of spending.

Reagan averaged 3.5% growth in GDP, what was your dear leaders 2%. Yep, spending is a stimulus for the short term, it usually lead to bubbles and recession in the long term, Reagan inherited a recession from Carter and Bush inherited one form wild willie.
.

Except Reagan INCREASED spending while "Wild Willie" cut spending so your story doesn't add up

 

[Brain357]

"Expands dramatically".

So your hopes are resting on a pipe dream!

And STILL no criticism of increased debt by the GOP!

The last three quarters GDP were almost 50% higher than your dear leaders average. If they get an increase of another 30% to 4% growth that will put it at 100% of maobamas average. I'd call that dramatic and totally plausible, it could possibly be higher. If that were the case there would be no increase in the debt if spending stays at current levels.


.

Yeah those bush cuts lead to such a strong economy

Deflecting already? The Bush economy did pretty well until the housing bubble burst and everyone knows who's fault that was.


.

I'm poInting out tax cuts do not guarantee any growth. The times there has been growth there was lots of spending.

Reagan averaged 3.5% growth in GDP, what was your dear leaders 2%. Yep, spending is a stimulus for the short term, it usually lead to bubbles and recession in the long term, Reagan inherited a recession from Carter and Bush inherited one form wild willie.


.

Not a huge fan of Obama. Now Clinton, had a a stronger economy than Reagan and balanced the budget. That should be our model.

 

[OKTexas]

So you're saying that if the economy expands dramatically it won't increase revenues to the government?


.

When have tax cuts not added to the debt?

The Reagan tax cuts more than doubled revenue, the problem spending almost did the same.
.

Come on buddy, if his tax-cuts "doubled revenue" why did he and hs successors chased it up with tax raises and not more tax-cuts?

Because they didn't is the simple answer. Debt EXPLODED under Reagan, yet conservatives still refer him as a model of economic genius. Which of course only makes sense if we think of the movement as a tax-cut cult.

Reagan let the commiecrats spend like drunk sailors as long as he got his military spending. Spending is the problem, not revenue.
.

Spending causes deficits therefore tax-cuts cannot? How does that make any sense?

Revenues were down with respect to economy during Reagan years, even as economy posted solid growth.
Then we had tax raises by Reagan, Bush and Clinton and collected record revenues at the top of 90's boom,which helped bring budget as close to balanced as we had in a very long time.
That was followed by more tax cuts, DISASTROUS receipts and oceans of red ink.

History around current rates is not very complicated - when you tax-cut you increase deficits.

Weird isn't it, back when they had a top marginal rate of 90%, the government wasn't taking in any more than when it was 39%. In fact sometime much less.


.

 

[OKTexas]

The last three quarters GDP were almost 50% higher than your dear leaders average. If they get an increase of another 30% to 4% growth that will put it at 100% of maobamas average. I'd call that dramatic and totally plausible, it could possibly be higher. If that were the case there would be no increase in the debt if spending stays at current levels.


.

Yeah those bush cuts lead to such a strong economy

Deflecting already? The Bush economy did pretty well until the housing bubble burst and everyone knows who's fault that was.


.

I'm poInting out tax cuts do not guarantee any growth. The times there has been growth there was lots of spending.

Reagan averaged 3.5% growth in GDP, what was your dear leaders 2%. Yep, spending is a stimulus for the short term, it usually lead to bubbles and recession in the long term, Reagan inherited a recession from Carter and Bush inherited one form wild willie.
.

Except Reagan INCREASED spending while "Wild Willie" cut spending so your story doesn't add up

Wow, you can sure see how the Gingrich contract with America had it's effect.


.

 

[OKTexas]

The Bush economy did pretty well until the housing bubble burst and everyone knows who's fault that was.
.

...You are badly confused - it was doing well because economic bubbles have UPSIDES before the explosion of downsides begins.

And good ole weeny eater barney swore Freddie and Fanny were doing just fine. LMAO
.

That's not a sane reply.

Bush economy did well on real estate and finance fumes until the whole thing exploded - you did not so much as try to dispute that.

What's there to talk about, the commiecrats were warned the bust was coming, they laughed it off and then tried to blame it on Bush. That was square on the head of Dodd and Franks.


.

 

[AntonToo]

Yeah those bush cuts lead to such a strong economy

Deflecting already? The Bush economy did pretty well until the housing bubble burst and everyone knows who's fault that was.


.

I'm poInting out tax cuts do not guarantee any growth. The times there has been growth there was lots of spending.

Reagan averaged 3.5% growth in GDP, what was your dear leaders 2%. Yep, spending is a stimulus for the short term, it usually lead to bubbles and recession in the long term, Reagan inherited a recession from Carter and Bush inherited one form wild willie.
.

Except Reagan INCREASED spending while "Wild Willie" cut spending so your story doesn't add up

Wow, you can sure see how the Gingrich contract with America had it's effect.


.

I see you are a master of replying without addressing anything. It doesn't matter who is responsible for the cuts, they still happened and were followed by the biggest recession in modern history, so your story does not add up.

 

[Brain357]

Yeah those bush cuts lead to such a strong economy

Deflecting already? The Bush economy did pretty well until the housing bubble burst and everyone knows who's fault that was.


.

I'm poInting out tax cuts do not guarantee any growth. The times there has been growth there was lots of spending.

Reagan averaged 3.5% growth in GDP, what was your dear leaders 2%. Yep, spending is a stimulus for the short term, it usually lead to bubbles and recession in the long term, Reagan inherited a recession from Carter and Bush inherited one form wild willie.
.

Except Reagan INCREASED spending while "Wild Willie" cut spending so your story doesn't add up

Wow, you can sure see how the Gingrich contract with America had it's effect.


.

Clinton and congress did great things. We need the parties to work together.

 

[AntonToo]

When have tax cuts not added to the debt?

The Reagan tax cuts more than doubled revenue, the problem spending almost did the same.
.

Come on buddy, if his tax-cuts "doubled revenue" why did he and hs successors chased it up with tax raises and not more tax-cuts?

Because they didn't is the simple answer. Debt EXPLODED under Reagan, yet conservatives still refer him as a model of economic genius. Which of course only makes sense if we think of the movement as a tax-cut cult.

Reagan let the commiecrats spend like drunk sailors as long as he got his military spending. Spending is the problem, not revenue.
.

Spending causes deficits therefore tax-cuts cannot? How does that make any sense?

Revenues were down with respect to economy during Reagan years, even as economy posted solid growth.
Then we had tax raises by Reagan, Bush and Clinton and collected record revenues at the top of 90's boom,which helped bring budget as close to balanced as we had in a very long time.
That was followed by more tax cuts, DISASTROUS receipts and oceans of red ink.

History around current rates is not very complicated - when you tax-cut you increase deficits.

Weird isn't it, back when they had a top marginal rate of 90%, the government wasn't taking in any more than when it was 39%. In fact sometime much less.
.

It's not weird, it's called being very far on right side of Laffer Curve. Almost no one was stupid enough to ride in the 90% tax braket and tax avoidance was rampant.

But at 39% and modern record keeping we are well on left side of the curve and reductions here do cause reduction in revenues.

 

[OKTexas]

The Reagan tax cuts more than doubled revenue, the problem spending almost did the same.
.

Come on buddy, if his tax-cuts "doubled revenue" why did he and hs successors chased it up with tax raises and not more tax-cuts?

Because they didn't is the simple answer. Debt EXPLODED under Reagan, yet conservatives still refer him as a model of economic genius. Which of course only makes sense if we think of the movement as a tax-cut cult.

Reagan let the commiecrats spend like drunk sailors as long as he got his military spending. Spending is the problem, not revenue.
.

Spending causes deficits therefore tax-cuts cannot? How does that make any sense?

Revenues were down with respect to economy during Reagan years, even as economy posted solid growth.
Then we had tax raises by Reagan, Bush and Clinton and collected record revenues at the top of 90's boom,which helped bring budget as close to balanced as we had in a very long time.
That was followed by more tax cuts, DISASTROUS receipts and oceans of red ink.

History around current rates is not very complicated - when you tax-cut you increase deficits.

Weird isn't it, back when they had a top marginal rate of 90%, the government wasn't taking in any more than when it was 39%. In fact sometime much less.
.

It's not weird, it's called being very far on right side of Laffer Curve. Almost no one was stupid enough to ride in the 90% tax braket and tax avoidance was rampant.

But at 39% and modern record keeping we are well on left side of the curve and reductions here do cause reduction in revenues.

So tell the class, where is the sweet spot?


.

 

[OKTexas]

Deflecting already? The Bush economy did pretty well until the housing bubble burst and everyone knows who's fault that was.


.

I'm poInting out tax cuts do not guarantee any growth. The times there has been growth there was lots of spending.

Reagan averaged 3.5% growth in GDP, what was your dear leaders 2%. Yep, spending is a stimulus for the short term, it usually lead to bubbles and recession in the long term, Reagan inherited a recession from Carter and Bush inherited one form wild willie.
.

Except Reagan INCREASED spending while "Wild Willie" cut spending so your story doesn't add up

Wow, you can sure see how the Gingrich contract with America had it's effect.


.

Clinton and congress did great things. We need the parties to work together.

Too bad the commiecrats went all stupid when Bush was elected.


.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The last three quarters GDP were almost 50% higher than your dear leaders average. If they get an increase of another 30% to 4% growth that will put it at 100% of maobamas average. I'd call that dramatic and totally plausible, it could possibly be higher. If that were the case there would be no increase in the debt if spending stays at current levels.


.

Yeah those bush cuts lead to such a strong economy

Deflecting already? The Bush economy did pretty well until the housing bubble burst and everyone knows who's fault that was.


.

I'm poInting out tax cuts do not guarantee any growth. The times there has been growth there was lots of spending.

Reagan averaged 3.5% growth in GDP, what was your dear leaders 2%. Yep, spending is a stimulus for the short term, it usually lead to bubbles and recession in the long term, Reagan inherited a recession from Carter and Bush inherited one form wild willie.


.

Not a huge fan of Obama. Now Clinton, had a a stronger economy than Reagan and balanced the budget. That should be our model.

When you combine the Internet Bubble with Gingrich holding the line on spending.......

 

[AntonToo]

Come on buddy, if his tax-cuts "doubled revenue" why did he and hs successors chased it up with tax raises and not more tax-cuts?

Because they didn't is the simple answer. Debt EXPLODED under Reagan, yet conservatives still refer him as a model of economic genius. Which of course only makes sense if we think of the movement as a tax-cut cult.

Reagan let the commiecrats spend like drunk sailors as long as he got his military spending. Spending is the problem, not revenue.
.

Spending causes deficits therefore tax-cuts cannot? How does that make any sense?

Revenues were down with respect to economy during Reagan years, even as economy posted solid growth.
Then we had tax raises by Reagan, Bush and Clinton and collected record revenues at the top of 90's boom,which helped bring budget as close to balanced as we had in a very long time.
That was followed by more tax cuts, DISASTROUS receipts and oceans of red ink.

History around current rates is not very complicated - when you tax-cut you increase deficits.

Weird isn't it, back when they had a top marginal rate of 90%, the government wasn't taking in any more than when it was 39%. In fact sometime much less.
.

It's not weird, it's called being very far on right side of Laffer Curve. Almost no one was stupid enough to ride in the 90% tax braket and tax avoidance was rampant.

But at 39% and modern record keeping we are well on left side of the curve and reductions here do cause reduction in revenues.

So tell the class, where is the sweet spot?
.

Depends on type of tax, collection system and social factors. So there are a lot of answers.

Consensus for American income taxes is at least 50% (that's where most conservative, not liberal, macro economic opinion is)

Tax Analysts -- What Is the Revenue-Maximizing Tax Rate?

We of course DO NOT NEED maximized collections, we just need enough to pay for the spending.

 

[Brain357]

Yeah those bush cuts lead to such a strong economy

Deflecting already? The Bush economy did pretty well until the housing bubble burst and everyone knows who's fault that was.


.

I'm poInting out tax cuts do not guarantee any growth. The times there has been growth there was lots of spending.

Reagan averaged 3.5% growth in GDP, what was your dear leaders 2%. Yep, spending is a stimulus for the short term, it usually lead to bubbles and recession in the long term, Reagan inherited a recession from Carter and Bush inherited one form wild willie.


.

Not a huge fan of Obama. Now Clinton, had a a stronger economy than Reagan and balanced the budget. That should be our model.

When you combine the Internet Bubble with Gingrich holding the line on spending.......

Was a great joint effort. Nothing good comes from partisan politics. Look at our government now, they can't wipe their own asses.

 

[Brain357]

I'm poInting out tax cuts do not guarantee any growth. The times there has been growth there was lots of spending.

Reagan averaged 3.5% growth in GDP, what was your dear leaders 2%. Yep, spending is a stimulus for the short term, it usually lead to bubbles and recession in the long term, Reagan inherited a recession from Carter and Bush inherited one form wild willie.
.

Except Reagan INCREASED spending while "Wild Willie" cut spending so your story doesn't add up

Wow, you can sure see how the Gingrich contract with America had it's effect.


.

Clinton and congress did great things. We need the parties to work together.

Too bad the commiecrats went all stupid when Bush was elected.


.

Yes they did. And bush was no conservative so we got hosed by both sides. Obama was too partisan. And that seems to be continuing with current do nothing government.

 

[sartre play]

The Laffer curve, now that's a joke

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Laffer curve, now that's a joke

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

 

[OKTexas]

Reagan let the commiecrats spend like drunk sailors as long as he got his military spending. Spending is the problem, not revenue.
.

Spending causes deficits therefore tax-cuts cannot? How does that make any sense?

Revenues were down with respect to economy during Reagan years, even as economy posted solid growth.
Then we had tax raises by Reagan, Bush and Clinton and collected record revenues at the top of 90's boom,which helped bring budget as close to balanced as we had in a very long time.
That was followed by more tax cuts, DISASTROUS receipts and oceans of red ink.

History around current rates is not very complicated - when you tax-cut you increase deficits.

Weird isn't it, back when they had a top marginal rate of 90%, the government wasn't taking in any more than when it was 39%. In fact sometime much less.
.

It's not weird, it's called being very far on right side of Laffer Curve. Almost no one was stupid enough to ride in the 90% tax braket and tax avoidance was rampant.

But at 39% and modern record keeping we are well on left side of the curve and reductions here do cause reduction in revenues.

So tell the class, where is the sweet spot?
.

Depends on type of tax, collection system and social factors. So there are a lot of answers.

Consensus for American income taxes is at least 50% (that's where most conservative, not liberal, macro economic opinion is)

Tax Analysts -- What Is the Revenue-Maximizing Tax Rate?

We of course DO NOT NEED maximized collections, we just need enough to pay for the spending.

Reagan let the commiecrats spend like drunk sailors as long as he got his military spending. Spending is the problem, not revenue.
.

Spending causes deficits therefore tax-cuts cannot? How does that make any sense?

Revenues were down with respect to economy during Reagan years, even as economy posted solid growth.
Then we had tax raises by Reagan, Bush and Clinton and collected record revenues at the top of 90's boom,which helped bring budget as close to balanced as we had in a very long time.
That was followed by more tax cuts, DISASTROUS receipts and oceans of red ink.

History around current rates is not very complicated - when you tax-cut you increase deficits.

Weird isn't it, back when they had a top marginal rate of 90%, the government wasn't taking in any more than when it was 39%. In fact sometime much less.
.

It's not weird, it's called being very far on right side of Laffer Curve. Almost no one was stupid enough to ride in the 90% tax braket and tax avoidance was rampant.

But at 39% and modern record keeping we are well on left side of the curve and reductions here do cause reduction in revenues.

So tell the class, where is the sweet spot?
.

Depends on type of tax, collection system and social factors. So there are a lot of answers.

Consensus for American income taxes is at least 50% (that's where most conservative, not liberal, macro economic opinion is)

Tax Analysts -- What Is the Revenue-Maximizing Tax Rate?

We of course DO NOT NEED maximized collections, we just need enough to pay for the spending.

All this theoretical stuff is fun, what concerns me is the inequity in current law. I'll give you a few examples. Like the refundable child tax credit, it's nothing but another welfare program embedded in the tax code, you want a damn welfare program do bury it in the tax code, put it in the damn budget so people can see exactly what we're spending on welfare.

Second people should pay the same taxes on the same incomes. That little thing about equal treatment under the 14th Amendment comes to mind. But that's not the case, they use the tax code for social engineering, rewarding people for the decisions the government endorses and taxing people at a higher rate who chose otherwise. Like people that chose not to have children, or a mortgage or live in lower tax States. People living in TN with no children or mortgage making $100,000 should pay the exact same tax as someone living in NY with 4 kids and a house making the same.

The way it is now, the folks in TN are subsidizing the life style of the people of NY, because even if they have the same house, number of kids and income, the folks in TN are still paying more to the feds because of the SALT deductions. That ain't right, how about we level the playing field? That applies to everyone regardless of tax rate.


.

 

[AntonToo]

Spending causes deficits therefore tax-cuts cannot? How does that make any sense?

Revenues were down with respect to economy during Reagan years, even as economy posted solid growth.
Then we had tax raises by Reagan, Bush and Clinton and collected record revenues at the top of 90's boom,which helped bring budget as close to balanced as we had in a very long time.
That was followed by more tax cuts, DISASTROUS receipts and oceans of red ink.

History around current rates is not very complicated - when you tax-cut you increase deficits.

Weird isn't it, back when they had a top marginal rate of 90%, the government wasn't taking in any more than when it was 39%. In fact sometime much less.
.

It's not weird, it's called being very far on right side of Laffer Curve. Almost no one was stupid enough to ride in the 90% tax braket and tax avoidance was rampant.

But at 39% and modern record keeping we are well on left side of the curve and reductions here do cause reduction in revenues.

So tell the class, where is the sweet spot?
.

Depends on type of tax, collection system and social factors. So there are a lot of answers.

Consensus for American income taxes is at least 50% (that's where most conservative, not liberal, macro economic opinion is)

Tax Analysts -- What Is the Revenue-Maximizing Tax Rate?

We of course DO NOT NEED maximized collections, we just need enough to pay for the spending.

Spending causes deficits therefore tax-cuts cannot? How does that make any sense?

Revenues were down with respect to economy during Reagan years, even as economy posted solid growth.
Then we had tax raises by Reagan, Bush and Clinton and collected record revenues at the top of 90's boom,which helped bring budget as close to balanced as we had in a very long time.
That was followed by more tax cuts, DISASTROUS receipts and oceans of red ink.

History around current rates is not very complicated - when you tax-cut you increase deficits.

Weird isn't it, back when they had a top marginal rate of 90%, the government wasn't taking in any more than when it was 39%. In fact sometime much less.
.

It's not weird, it's called being very far on right side of Laffer Curve. Almost no one was stupid enough to ride in the 90% tax braket and tax avoidance was rampant.

But at 39% and modern record keeping we are well on left side of the curve and reductions here do cause reduction in revenues.

So tell the class, where is the sweet spot?
.

Depends on type of tax, collection system and social factors. So there are a lot of answers.

Consensus for American income taxes is at least 50% (that's where most conservative, not liberal, macro economic opinion is)

Tax Analysts -- What Is the Revenue-Maximizing Tax Rate?

We of course DO NOT NEED maximized collections, we just need enough to pay for the spending.

All this theoretical stuff is fun, what concerns me is the inequity in current law. I'll give you a few examples. Like the refundable child tax credit, it's nothing but another welfare program embedded in the tax code, you want a damn welfare program do bury it in the tax code, put it in the damn budget so people can see exactly what we're spending on welfare.

Second people should pay the same taxes on the same incomes. That little thing about equal treatment under the 14th Amendment comes to mind. But that's not the case, they use the tax code for social engineering, rewarding people for the decisions the government endorses and taxing people at a higher rate who chose otherwise. Like people that chose not to have children, or a mortgage or live in lower tax States. People living in TN with no children or mortgage making $100,000 should pay the exact same tax as someone living in NY with 4 kids and a house making the same.

The way it is now, the folks in TN are subsidizing the life style of the people of NY, because even if they have the same house, number of kids and income, the folks in TN are still paying more to the feds because of the SALT deductions. That ain't right, how about we level the playing field? That applies to everyone regardless of tax rate.


.

Let’s get something straight - NY taxpayers subsidize TN people, not the other way around. Because TN gets more spending from feds than they put in ($1.6 for every $1 TN pays in).

Which States Are Givers and Which Are Takers?

People in New York STILL PAY MORE TAXES even with SALT deduction so your argument about them getting something extra is nonsense.

Finally, to live comparably to TN in NY your income needs to be at least 30% higher, which means that per-lifestyle you are paying FEDS more taxes even after SALT deductions.