Why don’t republicans seem to understand the consequences of tax cuts?

[ThisIsMe]

Have you voted for Supply Side Hucksters?

I don’t know? I’ve not paid attention to who the hucksters are. I didn’t think my post was ambiguous. We’re not going to get anywhere with new taxes if spending isn’t cut first. That’s all i had to say.

 

[The5thHorseman]

I don’t know? I’ve not paid attention to who the hucksters are. I didn’t think my post was ambiguous. We’re not going to get anywhere with new taxes if spending isn’t cut first. That’s all i had to say.

I find that it is almost always the scolds who add fuel to that fire.

 

[The Republicans]

Is anyone going to tell Einstein?

Fine! I hate to burst your thread if you’re a democrat but your idols that you support benefit from the cuts. Of course you are supposed to believe that only wealthy people who voted Republican benefited from the tax cuts? I hate to be that dick but the wealthy people that the democrats put up on a pedestal benefited from the same cuts. For any liberals who has prime and his stupid tv app. You should close your account because he got a tax cut for the last four years but, you won’t because you don’t give a damn about it

 

[mamooth]

How do they make our deficits when revenues go up, Halfwit?

Grownups can grasp the difference between "revenues that would-have-been without the tax cuts" and "revenues". It's not difficult. A grade-schooler can grasp it, but every conservative on this thread fails at it. This illustrates why no conservative should be allowed near the presidency -- all conservatives fail at basic economics.

Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

---
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has consistently reported that the Bush tax cuts did not pay for themselves and represented a sizable decline in revenue for the Treasury:

• The CBO estimated in June 2012 that the Bush tax cuts of 2001 (EGTRRA) and 2003 (JGTRRA) added approximately $1.5 trillion total to the debt over the 2002–2011 decade, excluding interest.
• The CBO estimated in January 2009 that the Bush tax cuts would add approximately $3.0 trillion to the debt over the 2010–2019 decade if fully extended at all income levels, including interest.
• The CBO estimated in January 2009 that extending the Bush tax cuts at all income levels over the 2011–2019 period would increase the annual deficit by an average of 1.7% GDP, reaching 2.0% GDP in 2018 and 2019.

---

This is where all conservatives now shriek that facts are a liberal conspiracy. Please, proceed. After all, when the facts contradict you, what else can you do?

 

[The5thHorseman]

Excuse me? It’s not only republicans who was the one who wanted to give billions to the arts and send millions to countries like Afghanistan to promote gender studies? Who was the party that wanted to give billion dollars to the arts? Meanwhile, they as the employees were going to get the stimulus check but no you guys wanted to push the envelope because if trump didn’t sign it then you guys would cry about it! Oh yeah which party said no on giving people a 1 million dollar stimulus check!

Meanwhile, they as the employees were going to get the stimulus check but no you guys wanted to push the envelope because if trump didn’t sign it then you guys would cry about it!

Are you referring to the checks to Americans that were delayed while they figured out how to put Grifty's signature on them?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Please stop, Toddster...

This is tiresome.

President Bush requested $481.4 billion in discretional spending for the Department of Defense’s 2008 budget. That figure does not include any of the spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been paid for primarily through “emergency supplemental requests” that are not included in the federal budget’s accounting.

Iraq, Afghanistan, and the U.S. Economy

not included in the federal budget’s accounting.

Not included in the budget doesn't mean "not spent, not borrowed, not added to the debt".

Sorry, I know liberals are bad at math.

 

[The5thHorseman]

not included in the federal budget’s accounting.

Not included in the budget doesn't mean "not spent, not borrowed, not added to the debt".

Sorry, I know liberals are bad at math.

Toddster,

If it isn't included in the budget, it isn't part of the BUDGET deficit..

That is not the same as suggesting that it isn't owed.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Can anyone listen to a liberal lecture US seriously about tax cuts when they completely ignore spending cuts?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddster,

If it isn't included in the budget, it isn't part of the BUDGET deficit..

That is not the same as suggesting that it isn't owed.

If it isn't included in the budget, it isn't part of the BUDGET deficit..

Prove it.

 

[The5thHorseman]

If it isn't included in the budget, it isn't part of the BUDGET deficit..

Prove it.

How many times, Todd

not included in the federal budget’s accounting

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How many times, Todd

not included in the federal budget’s accounting

Supplement to the budget. Why do you feel that doesn't add to spending, doesn't add to deficit?

 

[The5thHorseman]

Supplement to the budget. Why do you feel that doesn't add to spending, doesn't add to deficit?

No...it's "Emergency Supplemental Appropriation".

I haven't said that it doesn't add to spending..

I said that, until FY2010, ESAs for Iraqnam were not included in the reported deficit, specifically that of the federal budget.

 

[Markle]

Grownups can grasp the difference between "revenues that would-have-been without the tax cuts" and "revenues". It's not difficult. A grade-schooler can grasp it, but every conservative on this thread fails at it. This illustrates why no conservative should be allowed near the presidency -- all conservatives fail at basic economics.

Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

---
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has consistently reported that the Bush tax cuts did not pay for themselves and represented a sizable decline in revenue for the Treasury:

• The CBO estimated in June 2012 that the Bush tax cuts of 2001 (EGTRRA) and 2003 (JGTRRA) added approximately $1.5 trillion total to the debt over the 2002–2011 decade, excluding interest.
• The CBO estimated in January 2009 that the Bush tax cuts would add approximately $3.0 trillion to the debt over the 2010–2019 decade if fully extended at all income levels, including interest.
• The CBO estimated in January 2009 that extending the Bush tax cuts at all income levels over the 2011–2019 period would increase the annual deficit by an average of 1.7% GDP, reaching 2.0% GDP in 2018 and 2019.

This is where all conservatives now shriek that facts are a liberal conspiracy. Please, proceed. After all, when the facts contradict you, what else can you do?

Much as you will disputed these points, they are, never the less, FACT.

The CBO is little more than a calculator. They are only allowed to do static calculations and to only use the information they are provided by the party requesting the information. They can only say that if you reduce the 10% tax to 8% you are going to lose 2% of whatever. What they cannot do is take into consideration the FACT that the "whatever" will increase dramatically.

What that means is that the CBO cannot do a dynamic analysis. That means CBO could say take into consideration the FACT that by reducing taxes, revenues increase.

It is called the Laffer curve.

The 10% tax on say $1,000 income results in $100.00 in revenue.

Reducing the tax to say 8% results in greater activity so you have $1,300 in income so you have $104.00 in revenue.

Deny if you like, that is what happened.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No...it's "Emergency Supplemental Appropriation".

I haven't said that it doesn't add to spending..

I said that, until FY2010, ESAs for Iraqnam were not included in the reported deficit, specifically that of the federal budget.

I don't care what the FY 2009 "budget numbers" were, I'm interested in what the spending was.

So what was the FY 2009 spending?

 

[jc456]

so how is there more revenue now than there was before?

Cause he was gaslighting

 

[jc456]

I guess if you think the deficit doesn’t matter then have fun with that lol

Why can’t they cut spending?

 

[Nostra]

No.
We think the wealthy ought to pay their share.
Corporate welfare and tax loopholes and evasion by the rich (like Donald Trump only paying $700 in taxes) is bleeding this country dry!

Define their “fair share”. Give us the % of the total tax bill the top 1% should pay. Top 10%.

 

[The5thHorseman]

Supplement to the budget. Why do you feel that doesn't add to spending, doesn't add to deficit?

If it isn't included in the budget, it isn't part of the BUDGET deficit..

That is not the same as suggesting that it isn't owed.

 

[Nostra]

Dude, can you understand plain English? That money has to be paid back with interest. Are you stupid?

Revenues went up, Stupid.

Spending is the problem, not letting people keep more of the money they earn.

 

[The5thHorseman]

Why can’t they cut spending?

Who is "they"?