Would you people that say Trump didn't do anything... please explain what he did that no president had done in the last 32 years?

[Winston]

I was terrible wrong I agree.
Let me point out though the reason even though I personally was wrong in the math at least you pompous buTTT... I put links up. YOU? You think you can make comments pompous comments WITH no verification, no links.
The Table was my fault the DATA was from the source I linked if you paid attention! So here check the data again!

U.S. Federal Government Tax Revenue

The federal government generates tax revenue through sources like income and corporate taxes. Learn how much tax revenue the U.S. generates each year.

www.thebalance.com

But you won't check because you are just too lazy!

Due diligence works for you too. Do a little more substantiation and I will definitely do more double checking of these numbers!
I can say I'll do that but I doubt a pompous butt like you will do anything!

I have posted one link in this thread, the actual CBO report that the data was taken from. For my other claims, like GDP growth by president, I will be happy to document if necessary. But posting links is not what I was talking about when it comes to due diligence. And maybe due diligence is the wrong term, maybe it is common sense. I mean anyone with any Macroeconomic knowledge, especially when it comes to government funding, would know that 17% is about the sweet spot for government revenue, 17% of GDP. But as I pointed out, a 1200% increase in revenue would result in a total that is almost twice the current GDP.

And that 500 billion increase in revenue, over ten years. It is actually pitiful when measured against GDP and GDP growth of even an anemic 2% per year. Trump's claim about his tax cuts was that it would decrease the deficit, not that it would increase revenue. I believe making the claim that it was successful because it increased revenue, over ten years, and mostly because of the expiration of those very tax cuts, is moving the goalpost at best, and disingenuous at the worse. Again, something common sense should tell anyone.

You just need to slow down. Look, there are few, if any, posters on this board that have the finance and economic education and experience that I do. But your absolute obsession with finding "confirmation bias", blinds you to the common sense that I was speaking of. Slow down, think about the claims that you are willing to make.

 

[healthmyths]

I have posted one link in this thread, the actual CBO report that the data was taken from. For my other claims, like GDP growth by president, I will be happy to document if necessary. But posting links is not what I was talking about when it comes to due diligence. And maybe due diligence is the wrong term, maybe it is common sense. I mean anyone with any Macroeconomic knowledge, especially when it comes to government funding, would know that 17% is about the sweet spot for government revenue, 17% of GDP. But as I pointed out, a 1200% increase in revenue would result in a total that is almost twice the current GDP.

And that 500 billion increase in revenue, over ten years. It is actually pitiful when measured against GDP and GDP growth of even an anemic 2% per year. Trump's claim about his tax cuts was that it would decrease the deficit, not that it would increase revenue. I believe making the claim that it was successful because it increased revenue, over ten years, and mostly because of the expiration of those very tax cuts, is moving the goalpost at best, and disingenuous at the worse. Again, something common sense should tell anyone.

You just need to slow down. Look, there are few, if any, posters on this board that have the finance and economic education and experience that I do. But your absolute obsession with finding "confirmation bias", blinds you to the common sense that I was speaking of. Slow down, think about the claims that you are willing to make.

If you HAD "finance and economic education" then you'd actually be professional enough to let bygones be bygones! So your claim is questionable because only a peon in the "finance and economic education" would continue to hash this over.
I made a mistake. I admit it. But that's what intelligent adults do and not continue to display like you have your ego!

Right now I'm fairly confident that you've made mistakes but being the juvenile that can't seem to accept my admittance to being wrong
indicates you've made so many in your life you have to "shine" your meager experiences when an adult as I have done admit to being wrong. Now again you didn't evidently look at the source of the data.

U.S. Federal Government Tax Revenue

The federal government generates tax revenue through sources like income and corporate taxes. Learn how much tax revenue the U.S. generates each year.

www.thebalance.com

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you HAD "finance and economic education" then you'd actually be professional enough to let bygones be bygones! So your claim is questionable because only a peon in the "finance and economic education" would continue to hash this over.
I made a mistake. I admit it. But that's what intelligent adults do and not continue to display like you have your ego!

Right now I'm fairly confident that you've made mistakes but being the juvenile that can't seem to accept my admittance to being wrong
indicates you've made so many in your life you have to "shine" your meager experiences when an adult as I have done admit to being wrong. Now again you didn't evidently look at the source of the data.

U.S. Federal Government Tax Revenue

The federal government generates tax revenue through sources like income and corporate taxes. Learn how much tax revenue the U.S. generates each year.

www.thebalance.com

View attachment 685238

Why do most of your $ decreases show up as % increases?

 

[Winston]

If you HAD "finance and economic education" then you'd actually be professional enough to let bygones be bygones! So your claim is questionable because only a peon in the "finance and economic education" would continue to hash this over.
I made a mistake. I admit it. But that's what intelligent adults do and not continue to display like you have your ego!

Right now I'm fairly confident that you've made mistakes but being the juvenile that can't seem to accept my admittance to being wrong
indicates you've made so many in your life you have to "shine" your meager experiences when an adult as I have done admit to being wrong. Now again you didn't evidently look at the source of the data.

U.S. Federal Government Tax Revenue

The federal government generates tax revenue through sources like income and corporate taxes. Learn how much tax revenue the U.S. generates each year.

www.thebalance.com

View attachment 685238

Look, I appreciate your admission of a mistake. But you made two in this thread. The second mistake was claiming a 500 billion increase in revenue over ten years was significant, was because of the Trump tax cuts, and was the goal all along. But going to the source of the data presented by Balance, the CBO report of 2021, which can be confirmed by the report for 2022, we see that increase in revenue comes in the later years of the ten year time frame and is due to the sunsetting of the very tax cuts you want to claim are driving that revenue increase.

My post to you was not a condemnation of your mistakes, but some friendly advice as to how to avoid them in the future. Don't jump to confirmation bias so quickly. It is OK to trust, but verify. Go to the source, the horse's mouth as the old saying goes.

 

[whitehall]

Lefties want to execute Trump over tax cuts? WTF?

 

[Leo123]

All I know is that during Trump, I was paying 1/2 for gas that I am paying now, groceries were more affordable and I had more work. I don't give a shit about stats and graphs.

 

[healthmyths]

Look, I appreciate your admission of a mistake. But you made two in this thread. The second mistake was claiming a 500 billion increase in revenue over ten years was significant, was because of the Trump tax cuts, and was the goal all along. But going to the source of the data presented by Balance, the CBO report of 2021, which can be confirmed by the report for 2022, we see that increase in revenue comes in the later years of the ten year time frame and is due to the sunsetting of the very tax cuts you want to claim are driving that revenue increase.

My post to you was not a condemnation of your mistakes, but some friendly advice as to how to avoid them in the future. Don't jump to confirmation bias so quickly. It is OK to trust, but verify. Go to the source, the horse's mouth as the old saying goes.

Your comment about what I wrote..."You wrote: And that 500 billion increase in revenue, over ten years. It is actually pitiful when measured against GDP and GDP growth of even an anemic 2% per year.
Trump's claim about his tax cuts was that it would decrease the deficit, not that it would increase revenue.
I believe making the claim that it was successful because it increased revenue, over ten years, and mostly because of the expiration of those very tax cuts, is moving the goalpost at best, and disingenuous at the worse. Again, something common sense should tell anyone."
Of course $500 billion revenue i.e. $50 billion a year is ANEMIC"! So???
Maybe more TAX decreases are in order if after tax cuts INCREASE revenue!

But your comment..."mostly because of the expiration of those very tax cuts," Prove it!
Where is your crystal ball saying the tax cuts would NOT be maintained? You are assuming that so PROVE it.

Give me the numbers that show the majority of the $500 billion revenue comes AFTER the tax cuts expire.
You were rightfully critically of my tremendous math mistake. But the biggest distinction between you and me is I at least provide the links to verify. Where are your links?

 

[Winston]

Your comment about what I wrote..."You wrote: And that 500 billion increase in revenue, over ten years. It is actually pitiful when measured against GDP and GDP growth of even an anemic 2% per year.
Trump's claim about his tax cuts was that it would decrease the deficit, not that it would increase revenue.
I believe making the claim that it was successful because it increased revenue, over ten years, and mostly because of the expiration of those very tax cuts, is moving the goalpost at best, and disingenuous at the worse. Again, something common sense should tell anyone."
Of course $500 billion revenue i.e. $50 billion a year is ANEMIC"! So???
Maybe more TAX decreases are in order if after tax cuts INCREASE revenue!

But your comment..."mostly because of the expiration of those very tax cuts," Prove it!
Where is your crystal ball saying the tax cuts would NOT be maintained? You are assuming that so PROVE it.

Give me the numbers that show the majority of the $500 billion revenue comes AFTER the tax cuts expire.
You were rightfully critically of my tremendous math mistake. But the biggest distinction between you and me is I at least provide the links to verify. Where are your links?

***sigh***

I already have, post #12, this quote

After declining from 16.3 percent in 2020 to 16.0 percent in 2021, total revenues as a share of GDP are projected to reach 17.2 percent in 2025. Largely because of scheduled increases in taxes resulting from the expiration of certain provisions of the 2017 tax act that affect individual income taxes, revenues are projected to rise after 2025, reaching 17.9 percent of GDP by 2027

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2021-03/56977-LTBO-2021.pdf

The information on revenue is on page 24, prior to that quote there is this,

CBO’s revenue projections are based on the assumption that the rules for all tax sources (individual income taxes, corporate income taxes, payroll taxes, and other taxes) will change as scheduled under current law.

There is a whole paragraph on page 25, I will only bold the header, and of course this is in the "revenue" section of the CBO report.

Scheduled Increases in Taxes After 2025. Another factor pushing up taxes relative to income is the scheduled expiration after calendar year 2025 of nearly all provisions of the 2017 tax act that affect individual income taxes. The provisions that are scheduled to expire include lower statutory tax rates, the higher standard deduction, the repeal of personal exemptions, and the expansion of the child tax credit.33 Those expirations would cause tax liabilities to rise in calendar year 2026, boosting individual income tax receipts relative to GDP by 0.9 percentage points for the 2021–2031 period.

Of course, that is from the 2021 report. The 2022 report came out less than a month ago, page 23.

Scheduled Changes to Tax Rules. The most significant factor pushing up taxes in relation to income is the scheduled expiration, after calendar year 2025, of nearly all provisions of the 2017 tax act (P.L. 115-97) that affect individual income taxes. The expiring provisions include lower statutory tax rates, the higher standard deduction, the repeal of personal exemptions, and the expansion of the child tax credit. The scheduled changes to tax rules after 2025 would cause tax liabilities to rise in calendar year 2026. Those changes boost revenues as a share of GDP by 0.8 percentage points, on average, after 2025

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-07/57971-LTBO.pdf

 

[The Duke]

Note to self: Don't start any bad math threads.

 

[Dagosa]

FACT: from this source :Who Really Pays Uncle Sam's Bills?
Now THIS is a FACT but again almost ALL the BIASED MSM which a majority of truly ignorant people believe hasn't told this truth.
In fact they LIED.
In 2019 the USA Federal tax REVENUE increased 1,200% because of what???? OH MY... Trump's tax cuts!!! that he got passed and went into affect on
the 2019 revenue stream! And part of the increased revenue (EVEN THOUGH GASP!!!! there were tax cuts) came from repatriation of over the years under
Trump of nearly $1 trillion which was taxed 15.5% on liquid assets and 8% on noncash assets that are treated as if the companies repatriated cash prior to 2018 What Is Tax Repatriation and How Does It Work?

But people don't seem to realize this was another UNIQUE thing that Trump did that no other president has done since the tax tables been published!
View attachment 685083

No other was impeached twice, led an insurrection and stole classified material. No president ever lied like Trump.

 

[candycorn]

The Texans drafted Mario Williams one year. There were massively better players out there who they could have drafted but they took Mario Williams and he was a complete bust.

I recall one of the apologists for the Texicans coming out and stating, "No other rookie defensive lineman gets double-teamed on every snap" when trying to defend Mario's weekly disappearing act.

That is what this thread reminds me of.

Someone wake me when we get to the part about blaming Hunter for whatever is wrong with the world.

 

[healthmyths]

No other was impeached twice, led an insurrection and stole classified material. No president ever lied like Trump.

OK one point to blow up your statement "No president ever lied like Trump."

I'll ask you a question then you fill in the name that you've heard from the MSM that donated 96% to Hillary, spent 92% of the MSM with negative news and then donated 90% to Biden, who made this statement Trump or Biden:
"maybe if you drank bleach you may be okay" Who said that... Biden or Trump? Please answer with proof OK???

 

[Dagosa]

OK one point to blow up your statement "No president ever lied like Trump."

I'll ask you a question then you fill in the name that you've heard from the MSM that donated 96% to Hillary, spent 92% of the MSM with negative news and then donated 90% to Biden, who made this statement Trump or Biden:
"maybe if you drank bleach you may be okay" Who said that... Biden or Trump? Please answer with proof OK???

Get a life….babble does not an argument make.
No president ever lied like Trump. Case closed.

 

[healthmyths]

Get a life….babble does not an argument make.
No president ever lied like Trump. Case closed.

So you don't even know do you! Totally uninformed with no access to the FACTS...
Who said: "maybe if you drank bleach you may be okay" Biden or Trump. Simple question. Why can't you answer it?
Either you are too lazy or you will be proving the point that I was making! AGAIN Dummy simple question...
Who said "maybe if you drank bleach you may be okay" Come on chicken.... Tell me who said it!

 

[Dagosa]

So you don't even know do you! Totally uninformed with no access to the FACTS...
Who said: "maybe if you drank bleach you may be okay" Biden or Trump. Simple question. Why can't you answer it?
Either you are too lazy or you will be proving the point that I was making! AGAIN Dummy simple question...
Who said "maybe if you drank bleach you may be okay" Come on chicken.... Tell me who said it!

Typical bullshit out of context quotes. Notice you dullards never post an entire sentence let alone an entire paragraph or dissertation. You know when someone is full of shit, they start pulling this crap. Humper mentality…..I don’t think you guys are capable of a complete thought.

 

[Dagosa]

Please answer with proof OK???

Ha ha.
Thats a joke. You can’t handle the truth, bozo. That’s why you Hump for the Liar in Chief for four years…the leader of the white supremest dufus crowd.

 

[22lcidw]

No other was impeached twice, led an insurrection and stole classified material. No president ever lied like Trump.

That doesn't mean anything because many Repub do not believe in the Progs accusations anymore. No trust in them and no trust in the media. Its semantics.

 

[Penelope]

 

[Dagosa]

That doesn't mean anything because many Repub do not believe in the Progs accusations anymore. No trust in them and no trust in the media. Its semantics.

Impeachments aren’t taken lightly in history. As many times as the gop house tried to vote to impeach Obama, it never passed. People like Barr who were Trump’s kiss ass still don’t want to go down in history as an mouthpiece for the country’s biggest traitor. He’s now Trump’s worse Fix News enemy. Nope, you still do what you have to do to combat idiocy. Like McConnell is changing his tune on climate change, the old guard of the repugnants need to hear it and it’s historically important to be on the side of truth.

 

[surada]

Hmmm... Obama was president for 8 years!!!!! Trump 4 years PLUS you Trump haters did EVERYTHING with the BIASED MSM blessing, coverage and money to tear negate what this one of only 3 presidents had ever done! Why do you believe everything the MSM says when they did this?
They donated 96% to Hillary and 90% to Biden see attached.
How could they be too soft" when ABC,CBS,NBC donated $400 million in free advertising by providing in 3 months
Everything You Need to Know About TV Advertising Costs $104,700/30 sec.
32.7 hours of coverage, by TV standards an eternity of news time.
What they found was, as Trump himself might say, sad: "Over the summer, the broadcast networks have continued to pound Donald Trump and his team with the most hostile coverage of a president in TV news history —
92% negative, vs. just 8% positive.from July 29 through October 20

Broadcast networks deliver 92% negative coverage for Trump, 66% positive for Biden: Study

The country’s major broadcast news media outlets have never been more negatively biased against a sitting president than Donald Trump, a conservative media watchdog has concluded in its latest study, which found President Trump receives negatively-slanted coverage 92% of the time in network news...

www.washingtontimes.com

I just don't understand you people who are supposedly intelligent NOT recognizing that Trump be he arrogant, loud mouth, boisterous Queens nouveau riche got things done all the while donating as only 2 other presidents his salary. I just don't comprehend how
people like you can be so gullible. So provincial..." Trump is an asshole, therefore I don't like him even though he gets things DONE!"
Frankly that is so childish!
View attachment 685105

Trump spent many times his presidential salary playing golf on his properties.