• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump's Tax Cuts Expected to Generate Federal Revenue: Won't

upsideguy said:
yes, what is your point?
Click to expand...

probably, "i want to keep more of my money." seems to boil down to the conservative point in this thread. stubborn as hell people.
 
Master PO said:
which is why i want to cut their power by repealing the 17th amendment
Click to expand...

Think that'd help? Send the selections back to the State Legislators? Bageeebus, Texas legislators shouldn't be allowed to select dog catchers. :roll:

How about figuring out a way to prevent the S.C. from winding up being an extension of one political philosophy or the other? Maybe there's such thing as a political philosophical atheist for Justices? Seems like we have 2 branches of gov instead of 3 of one lean for a while then heads the opposite direction.

What about having a better definition of the General Welfare Clause? I mean actually a real definition - one that limits - not let them go self-will-run-riot. Right now, Congress makes it up as they go along. Hell of a power over us worker bees.

What a mess we weave.... :roll:
 
Incisor said:
So 2 + 2 = 4 is a "cherry picked" fact?
Click to expand...

As if things like macroeconomics extrapolated from something so mundane as 2+2. It doesn't take things like the chaos that is human behavior into account. Your example is unhelpful, not applicable, and dishonest.
 
Fishking said:
As if things like macroeconomics extrapolated from something so mundane as 2+2. It doesn't take things like the chaos that is human behavior into account. Your example is unhelpful, not applicable, and dishonest.
Click to expand...
Um, that was an "example" MR uses all the time.....and Incisor isn't around to explain that to you or to respond in any manner. In short, this was a miss-targeted and pointless post.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Um, that was an "example" MR uses all the time.....and Incisor isn't around to explain that to you or to respond in any manner. In short, this was a miss-targeted and pointless post.
Click to expand...

Sorry I wasn't able to use my psychic abilities to know your bff was gone. That aside, the topic isn't 2+2. It's more complicated than that. However, if you want to look at things like our unfunded liabilities, instead of predicted what may or may not stimulate economic growth, then 2+2 becomes much more relevant.

Fact is, government revenues have always gone up, even if taxes are lowered. The cyclic booms and busts have more of an effect of government revenues than taxes.
 
Fishking said:
Sorry I wasn't able to use my psychic abilities to know your bff was gone.
Click to expand...
Nor were you able to see he has been banned, apparently words are beyond comprehension.
That aside, the topic isn't 2+2.
Click to expand...
No one said it was, non-sequitur. The point was that MR uses meaningless comments like that ALL THE TIME, and it was used as a device to show the hypocrisy of MR's fact avoidance.
It's more complicated than that.
Click to expand...
No kidding.....and you think Incisor did not know that?
However, if you want to look at things like our unfunded liabilities, instead of predicted what may or may not stimulate economic growth, then 2+2 becomes much more relevant.
Click to expand...
I never knew that "unfunded liabilities" were a means to "stimulate economic growth". Do you often find that such dazzling incongruity wins debate?

Fact is, government revenues have always gone up, even if taxes are lowered.
Click to expand...
False, revenues often fall, completely independent of tax rates.
The cyclic booms and busts have more of an effect of (sic) government revenues than taxes.
Click to expand...
OK, yes, but that doesn't support yer previous line that "revenues have ALWAYS gone up".

Beyond this, Incisor was debating the Housing Crash...
 
Gimmesometruth said:
The point was that MR uses meaningless comments like that ALL THE TIME, and it was used as a device to show the hypocrisy of MR's fact avoidance.
Click to expand...

You're attributing what someone said to someone else. No one made said banned person post that so they are speaking for themselves. You're false attribution to MR is noted.

No kidding.....and you think Incisor did not know that? I never knew that "unfunded liabilities" were a means to "stimulate economic growth". Do you often find that such dazzling incongruity wins debate?
Click to expand...

I was simply pointing out what areas of the economy where 2+2 would be more applicable. Nothing more, nothing less. Don't read too much into it, sugar.

False, revenues often fall, completely independent of tax rates.OK, yes, but that doesn't support yer previous line that "revenues have ALWAYS gone up".

Beyond this, Incisor was debating the Housing Crash...
Click to expand...

No, not false. Revenues always go up. There can be things the temporarily reduce it but, again, those are due to booms and busts and not the tax rate. Ultimately, the temporary setback stops and revenues go up. Federal revenues are now higher than they've ever been.

https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762
 
Fishking said:
You're attributing what someone said to someone else.
Click to expand...
Uh, yeah, correctly too. What is yer point?
No one made said banned person post that so they are speaking for themselves. You're false attribution to MR is noted.
Click to expand...
Apparently you didn't even read a post or two further on where MR once again post his identity BS. I'll excuse not knowing MR, I won't excuse your inability to see something on the same page used again.



I was simply pointing out what areas of the economy where 2+2 would be more applicable.
Click to expand...
He wasn't using it as a macro device, he was using it as a device to show MR's hypocrisy.
Nothing more, nothing less. Don't read too much into it, sugar.
Click to expand...
I'm not into you like that, so find another.......and yer basic problem is the shallowness of your understanding of what was being done.


No, not false. Revenues always go up.
Click to expand...
It is FALSE, we have many examples of revenue declines.
There can be things the (sic) temporarily reduce it
Click to expand...
Good grief, you just shot down yer absolute.....but you insist:
but, again, those are due to booms and busts and not the tax rate.
Click to expand...
Your absolute was false, your qualifier makes no difference.
Ultimately, the temporary setback stops and revenues go up. Federal revenues are now higher than they've ever been.
Click to expand...
Again, yer absolute was false. Admit it and move on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom