- Joined
- Feb 7, 2012
- Messages
- 58,402
- Reaction score
- 26,455
- Location
- Mentor Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
That Trumpers can be mugged by the GOP and always profess to enjoy it amazes me. S&M?
How was I 'mugged' by the GOP?
That Trumpers can be mugged by the GOP and always profess to enjoy it amazes me. S&M?
Your paltry little tax cut was only included in that bill because they couldn't sell it to their constituencies without throwing crumbs to us little people. That's why the cut phases out in 2025. Only the rich, like corporate CEOs and other big corporation stakeholders got a significant cut, and theirs is permanent. Plus, it has already added $113 billion to the deficit, or 17%.
How the Trump Tax Cut Is Helping to Push the Federal Deficit to $1 Trillion - The New York Times
Trump's Additional Budget Deficit Was Largely Due To The Corporate Tax Cut
And they did not cut spending, like the Republican Party always says they're going to do, they've added to it, and Trump is demanding more for a wall that most Americans don't support, not on our dime.
The GOP/Trump tax reform bill helps corporations and the already rich. You and I? Not so much, and only long enough to dupe people into thinking that the bill was a good thing.
Oh, jeez, they "promised", first time any politicians EVER promised to "address spending cuts". Horrors.Of course, they also promised that in 2018 they'd address the spending cuts, but that was a lie of course. It's politically easier to borrow the tax cuts, make the donors happy, and blame Democrats for the expiring tax cuts on the middle class. And you're buying their BS.
Maybe not, there are definitely some LW money bag types donating for no other reason but ideology and TDS. In fact the LW donors dominate the top donors list.JasperL said:"The donor class comment isn't a non-sequitur...."
My argument is simply that the economy as of 2016 was on it's last gasps - growth less than 1.6% and declining. Theoretical "full employment" ONLY because so many people had dropped out of the work force. The fact that the economy has boomed and is growing steadily totally disproves your "there was ZERO economic need" for action.JasperL said:I don't know what your argument is. There was ZERO economic need for more fiscal stimulus a year ago. The tax cuts poured gasoline on a fire burning nicely at that time. What happens WHEN we have the next recession?
This is a silly argument. It's like a big "Nuh-uh" you have to cling to to avoid admitting the tax cuts are pumping up the economy with more jobs, more business expansion, more job availability, a half-million new manufacturing jobs, that your hero said where never coming back, now contributing to the economics. And all you can cling to is campaign rhetoric.JasperL said:If pointing out years of broken promises is "utter blather" then OK. Call it what you want. The GOP promised to reign in spending, and instead cut taxes and increased spending. Not a surprise to anyone paying attention, but maybe you don't care about their lies. I don't any more because their promises don't mean anything any more.
I'm a real worker. There are millions of citizens of the republic, just like me.
My argument is simply that the economy as of 2016 was on it's last gasps - growth less than 1.6% and declining. Theoretical "full employment" ONLY because so many people had dropped out of the work force. The fact that the economy has boomed and is growing steadily totally disproves your "there was ZERO economic need" for action.
This is a silly argument. It's like a big "Nuh-uh" you have to cling to to avoid admitting the tax cuts are pumping up the economy with more jobs, more business expansion, more job availability, a half-million new manufacturing jobs, that your hero said where never coming back, now contributing to the economics. And all you can cling to is campaign rhetoric.
Actually, no. Business rates were made permanent, but the people who run and own them pay PERSONAL income taxes just like you and me.Never said otherwise ... just trying (vainly) to point out to you that your tax cut, my tax cut, nearly everyone's tax cuts are temporary, but for big, extremely rich corporations, and the people who run them and/or own them, the billions per year that they are now getting in reduced taxes is permanent.
Never said otherwise ... just trying (vainly) to point out to you that your tax cut, my tax cut, nearly everyone's tax cuts are temporary, but for big, extremely rich corporations, and the people who run them and/or own them, the billions per year that they are now getting in reduced taxes is permanent.
Nonsense.The tax cuts passed in December 2017. This is a labor market gasping for air after years of steady growth.
View attachment 67250297
So what? We already addressed the unemployment rate.JasperL said:Unemployment rate was 4.1%. Real GDP growth in 3rd quarter 2017 was 2.8%. It was 3% in the 2nd quarter. The Dow returned about 25% in 2017.
Seriously? You're going to claim a year's results is enough to say "well, that's it"? Tax cuts were not done as a "fiscal stimulus" they were done to ensure continuing economic progress and prosperity.JasperL said:So why are you trying to gaslight me with nonsense that anyone with google can prove is nonsense. There was no need for fiscal stimulus in 2017.
Where did I say anything about not caring about deficits or debts? One of the goals of the tax bill was increased revenues. But enlighten us - exactly where would you like to see deficit changing spending cuts?JasperL said:OK, so no one cares about deficits or debt.
]Now you're trotting out mindless strawmen?JasperL said:I'll hold you to that next time the GOP starts putting out scare mongering stories about inflation is going to kill us! BUY GOLD! etc...
My tax cut wasnt paltry and if you are suddenly worried about the deficits now that the biggest deficit spender in US history, Barack Obama, is out of office, you can relax. Democrats now run the House so we can expect all the fiscal belt tightening you could ever dream of.
Nonsense.
So what? We already addressed the unemployment rate.
Seriously? You're going to claim a year's results is enough to say "well, that's it"? Tax cuts were not done as a "fiscal stimulus" they were done to ensure continuing economic progress and prosperity.
Where did I say anything about not caring about deficits or debts? One of the goals of the tax bill was increased revenues. But enlighten us - exactly where would you like to see deficit changing spending cuts?
Now you're trotting out mindless strawmen?
Now you just flat lying. I have NEVER said that spending should not be cut. Anyway, you're getting more and ridiculous with each post and I have better things to do than try and improve your economic knowledge, so I'm done with this conversation.You misstated GDP growth, used 2016 instead of 2017, and didn't mention the stock market, which boomed in the year prior to the tax cut.
Well, then we can never raise taxes or cut spending, because there will never be even a day when the economy isn't in recession or potentially in recession at some point in the future. Terrific. Pres. AOC has a license to borrow at will!
If you can't raise taxes or cut spending when the economy is booming, and we need to add to the deficit to make sure the economy stays booming, then there is just never a good time for fiscal restraint, because that will lower economic growth in the short term. That's how fiscal policy works.
And I don't know where to cut spending - ask the GOP. They've been promising you these spending cuts for years and years. Frankly I'd start addressing the deficits with higher taxes. That's ultimately how you get the public behind spending cuts - make them pay for spending with taxes. Seems obvious to me. If not, why would the public ever go along with spending cuts if Congress is confronted with deficits for as far as the eye can see and makes the deficits WORSE by handing out candy to the donor class? The average American wants candy too!
And, no, one if the goals was absolutely NOT to raise revenue, unless it was opposite day and tax rate CUTS were intended to increase tax collections. Was it opposite day on the day of the vote? I don't recall that....
No, you've made your priorities clear. We must never threaten economic growth by raising taxes or cutting spending. In fact in a boom period we should cut taxes and throw $100s of billions in borrowed money into the economy to make sure the boom continues. Deficits don't make your list.
Thats not how our justice system works. You dont pick a guy and investigate his entire life to see if he has done anything wrong. Somehow I doubt you would want that done to you. But because you hate Trump, you are fine with employing fascist tactics
Now you just flat lying. I have NEVER said that spending should not be cut.
LOL. Somewhere Hillary is LHMFAO at the newfound concern on the right wing for boundless, endless investigations.
Too bad for Trump that lying about.....well, everything, including the Trump towers, plural, has a cost and that cost is no one believes anything he says and will need the documents. Not divesting has a cost, which is disclosure. Giving the middle finger to the most basic steps to eliminate the massive conflicts of interest he has in his businesses has a cost, which is disclosure. Etc.
And what exactly is "fascist" about Congress doing its duty for oversight of a corrupt, dishonest President with a history of bad business practices and who surrounded himself with an all-star cast of thugs and criminals?
They way to create and continue an economic boom is to put money in the hands of economic decision makers; businesses, investors, consumers, entrepreneurs and employees and let them DECIDE where it goes rather than give it to a horde of unaccountable bureaucrats spending it on questionably effective government programs.No, you just said that we needed fiscal stimulus in a boom to make sure the boom continued. Well, spending cuts are fiscal drags in the short term. Same as tax increases. Tax increases and spending cuts work the same way on the economy - lower deficit spending, which lowers the economic boost of more borrowed money, dampening growth at least in the short term. It's math and multipliers, and if you want fiscal stimulus, the multipliers are much higher for many kinds of spending than they are for tax cuts for the donor class - several times higher in fact.
Point is if what you want is the economy to keep booming, a better option is more EBT, expand EITC, expand Medicaid or make the subsidies for ACA more generous. Those all get money in the hands of people who spend every dime nearly immediately, which boosts business revenues, profits, etc. A lot of tax cuts just go to more stock purchases.... Nothing bad about that, but the spending at the mall and grocery store has a bigger impact.
They way to create and continue an economic boom is to put money in the hands of economic decision makers; businesses, investors, consumers, entrepreneurs and employees and let them DECIDE where it goes rather than give it to a horde of unaccountable bureaucrats spending it on questionably effective government programs.
The GOP's greatest strategist once again offers up a master class in one-dimensional chess.
Trump Tax Cuts Are (Probably) About to Become a Political Disaster
To begin with, the tax cuts were mostly a scam on the middle class to give the rich the big cut on tax breaks. As it is, the increase in costs of products bought (because of the Tariff war) and the increase in inflation, means the middle class got crumbs while the rich got the entire pie.
It is all a scam on the middle class to feed the rich. That is what it is.
It doesn't have to be "paid for" the growing economy will generate additional tax revenue.That's fine with me - just pay for it with spending cuts! If not, and we're just handing out borrowed money, then if you increase EITC, that goes into the hands of consumers who will spend it nearly immediately, and that business can then expand or not, etc. All those are economic decision makers, same as the guys who fly around in private jets.
Actually, a huge percentage of companies are deploying their cash reserves in wages, bonuses and business expansion.JasperL said:They and the Fortune 500 were already sitting on piles of cash, worth $trillions cumulatively, and don't start new businesses because they make no sense given current levels of demand.
Workers that continue improving the worth to their employers have done quite well. Those that punch the time clock twice a day go home, dry a six-pack of Budweiser and what Survivor reruns - not so much.JasperL said:And if there is anything "questionably effective" it's MOR TAX CUTS! Since Reagan we've brought the marginal rates way down, C corps pay an ever dwindling share of our tax base, we've incentivized capital gains with very low rates for decades, cratered the estate tax, and all that has worked beautifully to increase profits going to the Fortune 500 and the top 1% and above, but not so well for workers. So I can't see the evidence that more tax cuts is the missing link.
It doesn't have to be "paid for" the growing economy will generate additional tax revenue.
Actually, a huge percentage of companies are deploying their cash reserves in wages, bonuses and business expansion.
It doesn't have to be "paid for" the growing economy will generate additional tax revenue.
Actually, a huge percentage of companies are deploying their cash reserves in wages, bonuses and business expansion.
Workers that continue improving the worth to their employers have done quite well. Those that punch the time clock twice a day go home, dry a six-pack of Budweiser and what Survivor reruns - not so much.
Sorry, no, there are hundreds of thousands of economists that believe exactly that.That is the fundamental dishonesty at the heart of the GOP fiscal strategy, which is the fundamental dishonesty at the heart of the GOP. It's just not true. There isn't an economist anywhere who believes tax rate cuts RAISE revenue, and it's because the empirical evidence contradicts that claim. It's a fantasy, akin to a belief in a Tax Santa Clause, a Tax Money Tree.
Again, not true. In 2003 when Bush cut more tax and accelerated some others revenues grew at almost 9% annually with the deficit dropping to $163 billion, Unfortunately the Dems took control of Congress in 2007 and :hitsfan: By the end of the year we were in the Great Recession.JasperL said:Bush II cut taxes twice and revenues cratered, he blew up the deficit, and we didn't even come back to "balances" seen at the end of Clinton at the top of a just massive, unsustainable debt and related housing bubble, that then burst because bubbles always do, and cratered revenues.
Whether you've seen or not, it's a fact. Companies have sped up capital spending, increased hiring and are planning further growth.JasperL said:That's not what the evidence I've seen shows. Wages are going up because we're on the tail end of a years long expansion in the labor market, not because GE or whoever has some extra cash lying around.
What evidence do you need? Some folks are earning raises and moving up the ladder, and others are not. Increased skills and knowledge earns increased income.JasperL said:As to workers - that's not also not an evidence based analysis. You're just blaming 10s of millions of workers for being lazy, but there is no evidence to support that.
Sorry, no, there are hundreds of thousands of economists that believe exactly that.
Again, not true. In 2003 when Bush cut more tax and accelerated some others revenues grew at almost 9% annually with the deficit dropping to $163 billion, Unfortunately the Dems took control of Congress in 2007 and :hitsfan: By the end of the year we were in the Great Recession.
Whether you've seen or not, it's a fact. Companies have sped up capital spending, increased hiring and are planning further growth.
What evidence do you need? Some folks are earning raises and moving up the ladder, and others are not. Increased skills and knowledge earns increased income.
Again, what you "think" really doesn't matter compared to facts.I don't think so. If you want to quote someone, that would be great. What many will argue is the tax cuts boost economic growth, so we need "dynamic" estimates of the impact, and they show that $1 in nominal tax cuts might only cost 80 cents or 70 cents, but they still lower revenue from the baseline.
Revenue in Clinton's last year was $1991 billion according to CBO. Your table is mathematically altered by converting values to 2009 dollars, they are not actual numbers.JasperL said:Here are real receipts in total (which is giving your argument the easiest bar to clear...): Access Denied table 1.3
2000 2,541.0
2001 2,433.2
2002 2,227.6
2003 2,083.6
2004 2,141.8
2005 2,371.6
2006 2,561.9
2007 2,663.1
2008 2,529.0
2009 2,105.0
So, Bush cut taxes and despite a bubble economy, years of growth, $trillions in added household debt setting up the great collapse and the Great Recession, we didn't match revenues in the last year of Clinton until 2006. So, no, tax cuts don't raise revenue, the lower them.
Funny, your entire posting history is anecdotal.JasperL said:Evidence is evidence. Anecdotes =/= evidence.
Nope, not lazy, just not motivated to advance.JasperL said:And if you want to allege that workers in just lazy, it's a convenient argument because it's made up, unprovable.
Again, what you "think" really doesn't matter compared to facts.
Revenue in Clinton's last year was $1991 billion according to CBO. Your table is mathematically altered by converting values to 2009 dollars, they are not actual numbers.