WILL TAX CUTS VS. SPENDING REDUCTION PUT THE USA IN BANKRUPTCY?

[healthmyths]

I'm not taking a position but asking a simple question...
If 3 events occur in the next 3 years...
1) A tax cut reduces how much taxpayers will have to pay
2) Will these taxpayers, i.e. people, corporations, etc spend more
3) And if they spend more will there not be more income for both individuals and companies?

How many times have we heard "a rising tide lifts all boats".
Does having more money in all our pockets mean more to be spent for goods and services by people and companies?
I am using an experience I had in the late 1990s as a computer consultant to a yacht manufacturer.
The workers all applauded millionaires/billionaires because they bought the boats that the workers made and were paid to build.
More boats being bought, meant more workers being paid more and more people working.
Truly and example of the famous DEMOCRAT President's statement:
John F. Kennedy is credited with popularizing the aphorism “a rising tide lifts all boats"
to suggest that investing in economic development can benefit everyone who participates in the economy.

A rising tide lifts all boats - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Can you believe that you Democrats?

 

[Votto]

I'm not taking a position but asking a simple question...
If 3 events occur in the next 3 years...
1) A tax cut reduces how much taxpayers will have to pay
2) Will these taxpayers, i.e. people, corporations, etc spend more
3) And if they spend more will there not be more income for both individuals and companies?

How many times have we heard "a rising tide lifts all boats".
Does having more money in all our pockets mean more to be spent for goods and services by people and companies?
I am using an experience I had in the late 1990s as a computer consultant to a yacht manufacturer.
The workers all applauded millionaires/billionaires because they bought the boats that the workers made and were paid to build.
More boats being bought, meant more workers being paid more and more people working.
Truly and example of the famous DEMOCRAT President's statement:
John F. Kennedy is credited with popularizing the aphorism “a rising tide lifts all boats"
to suggest that investing in economic development can benefit everyone who participates in the economy.

A rising tide lifts all boats - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Can you believe that you Democrats?

How much debt is too much debt?

I reckon we will all find out pretty soon.

And no, neither party has given a damn as of yet.

The only time you hear complaints about spending, is when the opposing party is out of power.

 

[healthmyths]

How much debt is too much debt?

I reckon we will all find out pretty soon.

And no, neither party has given a damn as of yet.

The only time you hear complaints about spending, is when the opposing party is out of power.

The economy saw robust growth (around 4% annually) and significant job creation (22.7 million), contributing to increased tax revenue. Furthermore, the Clinton administration raised taxes on higher income taxpayers, cut defense spending, and implemented welfare reforms, which also led to a rise in revenue and a decline in spending relative to the economy's size. These combined factors helped the US federal budget move into surplus from 1998 to 2001, a period of relative stability for the national debt. These factors helped bring the United States federal budget into surplus from fiscal years 1998 to 2001, the only surplus years since 1969.

Economic policy of the Bill Clinton administration - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What happened next was 9/11/2001 and the USA was found short in defense.

Increases in military spending after 2001 have contributed to the rise in the national debt. The post-9/11 wars, in particular, have led to significant debt accumulation as the government has largely financed these conflicts through borrowing.

Macroeconomic Impact | Costs of War

The Costs of War Project is a team of 35 scholars, legal experts, human rights practitioners, and physicians, which began its work in 2011. We use research and a public website to facilitate debate about the costs of the post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

watson.brown.edu

 

[kyzr]

I'm not taking a position but asking a simple question...
If 3 events occur in the next 3 years...
1) A tax cut reduces how much taxpayers will have to pay
2) Will these taxpayers, i.e. people, corporations, etc spend more
3) And if they spend more will there not be more income for both individuals and companies?

How many times have we heard "a rising tide lifts all boats".
Does having more money in all our pockets mean more to be spent for goods and services by people and companies?
I am using an experience I had in the late 1990s as a computer consultant to a yacht manufacturer.
The workers all applauded millionaires/billionaires because they bought the boats that the workers made and were paid to build.
More boats being bought, meant more workers being paid more and more people working.
Truly and example of the famous DEMOCRAT President's statement:
John F. Kennedy is credited with popularizing the aphorism “a rising tide lifts all boats"
to suggest that investing in economic development can benefit everyone who participates in the economy.

Can you believe that you Democrats?

The 2017 tax cuts did not grow the economy 5% as Trump and Mnuchin promised.
What happened was more borrowing, which may have goosed the economy slightly and raised revenue slightly, in spite of the tax cuts.

The cocks crowing does not make the sun rise.......
........tax cuts do not necessarily cause tax revenue to increase, look at the borrowing too

 

[Kondor3]

I'm not taking a position but asking a simple question...
If 3 events occur in the next 3 years...
1) A tax cut reduces how much taxpayers will have to pay
2) Will these taxpayers, i.e. people, corporations, etc spend more
3) And if they spend more will there not be more income for both individuals and companies?

How many times have we heard "a rising tide lifts all boats".
Does having more money in all our pockets mean more to be spent for goods and services by people and companies?
I am using an experience I had in the late 1990s as a computer consultant to a yacht manufacturer.
The workers all applauded millionaires/billionaires because they bought the boats that the workers made and were paid to build.
More boats being bought, meant more workers being paid more and more people working.
Truly and example of the famous DEMOCRAT President's statement:
John F. Kennedy is credited with popularizing the aphorism “a rising tide lifts all boats"
to suggest that investing in economic development can benefit everyone who participates in the economy.

A rising tide lifts all boats - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Can you believe that you Democrats?

We have been bankrupt for at least a couple of decades while living on borrowed credit and past glories.

You're not seriously expecting the re-tards on EITHER side of the aisle in Washington DC to remedy that, are you?

If you are, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd like to have you take off my hands fer cheap.

 

[healthmyths]

We have been bankrupt for at least a couple of decades while living on borrowed credit and past glories.

You're not seriously expecting the re-tards on EITHER side of the aisle in Washington DC to remedy that, are you?

If you are, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd like to have you take off my hands fer cheap.

SO YOU were the idiot that bought the Brooklyn bridge from George C. Parker (March 16, 1860[1] – 1937) was an American con man best known for his repeated successes "selling" the Brooklyn Bridge.

George C. Parker - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[healthmyths]

I've a solution for paying off the national debt!
FACT not from me but:
The net worth of the United States, after subtracting total debts, is estimated to be at least $123.8 trillion. This calculation is based on assets of at least $269 trillion and debts of $145.8 trillion.

Fiscal Data Explains the National Debt

Check out @FiscalService Fiscal Data’s new national debt page! #NationalDebt

fiscaldata.treasury.gov

The national debt is $36.56 trillion.
A one time national tax of 30% on all assets of $123.8 trillion would generate $36.56 Trillion.
Problem solved!
One time tax that can be paid over 10 years.. would pay off the entire national debt!

 

[dudmuck]

I'm not taking a position but asking a simple question...
If 3 events occur in the next 3 years...
1) A tax cut reduces how much taxpayers will have to pay
2) Will these taxpayers, i.e. people, corporations, etc spend more
3) And if they spend more will there not be more income for both individuals and companies?

How many times have we heard "a rising tide lifts all boats".
Does having more money in all our pockets mean more to be spent for goods and services by people and companies?
I am using an experience I had in the late 1990s as a computer consultant to a yacht manufacturer.
The workers all applauded millionaires/billionaires because they bought the boats that the workers made and were paid to build.
More boats being bought, meant more workers being paid more and more people working.
Truly and example of the famous DEMOCRAT President's statement:
John F. Kennedy is credited with popularizing the aphorism “a rising tide lifts all boats"
to suggest that investing in economic development can benefit everyone who participates in the economy.

A rising tide lifts all boats - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Can you believe that you Democrats?

 

[Winco]

 

[candycorn]

The economy saw robust growth (around 4% annually) and significant job creation (22.7 million), contributing to increased tax revenue. Furthermore, the Clinton administration raised taxes on higher income taxpayers, cut defense spending, and implemented welfare reforms, which also led to a rise in revenue and a decline in spending relative to the economy's size. These combined factors helped the US federal budget move into surplus from 1998 to 2001, a period of relative stability for the national debt. These factors helped bring the United States federal budget into surplus from fiscal years 1998 to 2001, the only surplus years since 1969.

Economic policy of the Bill Clinton administration - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What happened next was 9/11/2001 and the USA was found short in defense.

Increases in military spending after 2001 have contributed to the rise in the national debt. The post-9/11 wars, in particular, have led to significant debt accumulation as the government has largely financed these conflicts through borrowing.

Macroeconomic Impact | Costs of War

The Costs of War Project is a team of 35 scholars, legal experts, human rights practitioners, and physicians, which began its work in 2011. We use research and a public website to facilitate debate about the costs of the post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

watson.brown.edu

We were not short in defense in 2001. As the ensuing wars in the middle east proved. We just didn't understand the audacity of the enemy.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The economy saw robust growth (around 4% annually) and significant job creation (22.7 million), contributing to increased tax revenue. Furthermore, the Clinton administration raised taxes on higher income taxpayers, cut defense spending, and implemented welfare reforms, which also led to a rise in revenue and a decline in spending relative to the economy's size. These combined factors helped the US federal budget move into surplus from 1998 to 2001, a period of relative stability for the national debt. These factors helped bring the United States federal budget into surplus from fiscal years 1998 to 2001, the only surplus years since 1969.

Economic policy of the Bill Clinton administration - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What happened next was 9/11/2001 and the USA was found short in defense.

Increases in military spending after 2001 have contributed to the rise in the national debt. The post-9/11 wars, in particular, have led to significant debt accumulation as the government has largely financed these conflicts through borrowing.

Macroeconomic Impact | Costs of War

The Costs of War Project is a team of 35 scholars, legal experts, human rights practitioners, and physicians, which began its work in 2011. We use research and a public website to facilitate debate about the costs of the post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

watson.brown.edu

Word Salad above

 

[healthmyths]

We were not short in defense in 2001. As the ensuing wars in the middle east proved. We just didn't understand the audacity of the enemy.

Where is your proof? Just your grossly uninformed opinion! I provide expert links and not my uninformed personal subjective opinions. This is the problem with forums like this. Some people form voting actions based on very little evidence!

 

[candycorn]

Where is your proof? Just your grossly uninformed opinion! I provide expert links and not my uninformed personal subjective opinions. This is the problem with forums like this. Some people form voting actions based on very little evidence!

2 years after 9/11 we rubbed out the one of the top ten largest armies on the planet losing about 60 soldiers as I recall.

Thats my proof. Remember when you were celebrating Shock and Awe and all that stuff (all the stuff you disavow now of course)?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Where is your proof? Just your grossly uninformed opinion! I provide expert links and not my uninformed personal subjective opinions. This is the problem with forums like this. Some people form voting actions based on very little evidence!

Your goofy allegations though aren't support by your links, though.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

We should be taxing the rich, taking care of the poor more carefully, cutting DOD, and start acting like adults with the country's finances.

 

[healthmyths]

Your goofy allegations though aren't support by your links, though.

YOU are proving again how truly dumb you are! Prove that my links don't support not my comments but the commentators comments! These aren't my comments!!!
Please prove to me these comments are MINE! Dummies like you make stupid ass UNSUPPORTED statements!

The U.S. had strong economic growth (around 4% annually) and record job creation (22.7 million). He raised taxes on higher income taxpayers early in his first term and cut defense spending and welfare, which contributed to a rise in revenue and decline in spending relative to the size of the economy

Economic policy of the Bill Clinton administration - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Since late 2001, the United States has appropriated and is obligated to spend an estimated $8 trillion through Fiscal Year 2022 in budgetary costs related to and caused by the post-9/11 wars — an estimated $5.8 trillion in appropriations in current dollars and an additional minimum of $2.2 trillion for U.S. obligations to care for the veterans of these wars through the next several decades.

Macroeconomic Impact | Costs of War

The Costs of War Project is a team of 35 scholars, legal experts, human rights practitioners, and physicians, which began its work in 2011. We use research and a public website to facilitate debate about the costs of the post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

watson.brown.edu