• 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

Probably didn't.
What? Why in the hell can't you form complete thoughts on the page that make any sense?
I have to admit that in light of the economy of the Obama administration, you have some guts to be claiming that the economic philosophy they utilized wasn't utilized enough.
"Philosophy"? YOUR argument is supposed to be about POLICY. A WH cannot effect POLICY in large measure WITHOUT CONGRESS. The US House did not COOPERATE, ergo, this was the recovery the GOP wanted and got.
If the result is supposed to be a cure, I believe I'd rather be sick. You guys are of the same sort that advocated "bleeding" as a sound medical practice.
I'm not sure which is worse, yer inability to comprehend macro...or yer inability to comprehend how the US govt works.
 
The only way you could go about doing that is if you made "spreadsheet errors" or had "(un)intentional omissions", or just changed the numbers manually, or deleted the numbers that don't support your case. I sourced my numbers. Yours seemed pulled out of thin air. Be wary of Conservatives touting numbers to support any economic position.




Nope. Only one group allowed this to happen: Conservatives. They were the ones in control when the subprime bubble started, and they were in control when it started to crumble. We've seen the charts. The skyrocketing subprime origination numbers from 2004-7 and the fact that Conservatives controlled all three branches of government from 2003-7, should be all the evidence you need to come to the conclusion that the actions taken by the Conservatives was to stimulate an economy that shed nearly 800,000 jobs, erased a surplus, produced 2 record deficits (4 record deficits overall during Bush the Dumber), and had the worst GDP growth since the Great Depression just in the first four years of Bush.

I've been honest about everything. I've provided you with sourced charts. I've been rational and patient, even deliberate in what I've written. It seems to me that you live in the "alt" bubble, so facts and truth are just things you won't accept. Which is fine. We all delude ourselves into thinking something at some point in our lives. I was deluded into thinking I'd ever have a shot at Carla Gugino, you were deluded into thinking that the eight years we just went through, with Conservative obstruction the entire time, is somehow the fault of Keynesian economics.

All he has to do is cherry pick his facts, just as you cherry pick your facts.
 
Not another good grief - must be some kind of record. So $9 trillion of Obama deficit spending didn't provide any relief for "aggregate demand shortfall"? And now you've pounced on regulations and ignored the rest. Could you be more ridiculous? Probably. I don't know why I even asked.
There was no "$9T" of STIMULUS SPENDING, yer conflating deficits, caused PRIMARILY by lowered revenue, with stimulus. They ain't the same thing. Yer shoot'in blanks.
 
What? Why in the hell can't you form complete thoughts on the page that make any sense? "Philosophy"? YOUR argument is supposed to be about POLICY. A WH cannot effect POLICY in large measure WITHOUT CONGRESS. The US House did not COOPERATE, ergo, this was the recovery the GOP wanted and got.I'm not sure which is worse, yer inability to comprehend macro...or yer inability to comprehend how the US govt works.

Oh, bull ****. Don't make excuses for the poor performance of the Obama economy. You sure are talky. So far today here I've learned that Bush was the devil incarnate and the GOP doubled down during Obama to tank the economy for all time according to you and your Keynesian cohorts. But the truth is that even the hint by Trump that he'll reduce corporate tax rates has brought more jobs back than Obama and his advisors could ever have envisioned. That's just based on a promise. Imagine what the real thing will do.
 
Oh, bull ****. Don't make excuses for the poor performance of the Obama economy. You sure are talky. So far today here I've learned that Bush was the devil incarnate and the GOP doubled down during Obama to tank the economy for all time according to you and your Keynesian cohorts. But the truth is that even the hint by Trump that he'll reduce corporate tax rates has brought more jobs back than Obama and his advisors could ever have envisioned. That's just based on a promise. Imagine what the real thing will do.
As others have pointed out, yer not dealing in real world events, yer subject to a wild imagination that cannot grasp anything other than alt realities. You have been given ample opportunities to provide any sort of real-world data, the closest you came to that was the "92 million" claim which is easily debunked. Now I'm not really expecting any sort of rational argument from you, it hasn't happened....it more than likely will never happen. I just wish for your own sake that you could at the least get a little background on the topics you want to debate BEFORE you drop into this sub-forum.
 
As others have pointed out, yer not dealing in real world events, yer subject to a wild imagination that cannot grasp anything other than alt realities. You have been given ample opportunities to provide any sort of real-world data, the closest you came to that was the "92 million" claim which is easily debunked. Now I'm not really expecting any sort of rational argument from you, it hasn't happened....it more than likely will never happen. I just wish for your own sake that you could at the least get a little background on the topics you want to debate BEFORE you drop into this sub-forum.

The fact remains that actually closer to 95 million are out of the workforce despite your so-called debunking. The elderly and disabled didn't just come into being with the Obama administration. They've been with us all along. You guys are big on posting charts and wing dings that support your vacuous claims. You're not so big on discussing reality. I wish some of you had some knowledge of economic reality that's demonstrably successful. You don't. All you have is some cherry picked charts and a political agenda. Economic knowledge - meh, not so much. But carry on. When the economy starts growing at rates above 3%, your pitiful claims will be outed for the garbage they are.
 
The fact remains that actually closer to 95 million are out of the workforce despite your so-called debunking. The elderly and disabled didn't just come into being with the Obama administration. They've been with us all along.
Uh, if they have "been with us all along", they are NOT a result of the policies of the last administration. Think before you type...or at least reread and edit after.
You guys are big on posting charts and wing dings that support your vacuous claims. You're not so big on discussing reality.
The irony! Data is NOT reality! Alt facts rule! War is Peace!
I wish some of you had some knowledge of economic reality that's demonstrably successful. You don't. All you have is some cherry picked charts and a political agenda. Economic knowledge - meh, not so much. But carry on. When the economy starts growing at rates above 3%, your pitiful claims will be outed for the garbage they are.
Well here is the funny bit...one of the Orangatan's campaign promises (that probably WON'T see any significant action) was to implement infrastructure spending, ie, FISCAL STIMULUS. Now...its OK, not so much for the last 6 years.
 
The fact remains that actually closer to 95 million are out of the workforce despite your so-called debunking. The elderly and disabled didn't just come into being with the Obama administration. They've been with us all along. .

You do realize that the number of people not in the labor force has set a new record high under every single president, right? It got a little steeper due to increased retirement and the recession. My professional opinion is that a large part of the increase besides retirees and disabled are those who did not necessarily need jobs, and would rather not work than waste time looking.
 
You do realize that the number of people not in the labor force has set a new record high under every single president, right? It got a little steeper due to increased retirement and the recession. My professional opinion is that a large part of the increase besides retirees and disabled are those who did not necessarily need jobs, and would rather not work than waste time looking.

All true, but as presented in the post I responded to it's extremely misleading. If you reduce the numbers by the factors I mentioned over the past, it's easy to see that the baby boomers have had an effect, and longevity rather dramatically increased following WWII. Disability has also spiked somewhat, and that's for a number of reasons. However, I specifically stated "means tested federal benefits", and those recipients include far more than the simply unemployed, retirees, and the disabled. And the poster I responded to knows this, but chose to avoid that fact for obvious reasons.
 
However, I specifically stated "means tested federal benefits", and those recipients include far more than the simply unemployed, retirees, and the disabled. And the poster I responded to knows this, but chose to avoid that fact for obvious reasons.
Um, what you said was:

It's further an expose on the failure of Obamanomics when the means tested number of people receiving federal benefits is viewed at the same time.

I have no idea what your point is, you made no point of what happens when you view it "at the same time". If you are describing SNAP, those that became enrolled during the first Obama term did so as a result of the The Great Bush Recession, welfare increases, like un/employment is a lagging indicator.

Pro-tip: The Obama admin was the janitor for the mess the Bush admin left behind. If you wanted a better recovery, you should have written your Congress representatives to do something about it then. It is too late now.
 
If the tax cuts are across the board - mixed in with corresponding government expenditure cutbacks than there is a chance for a rise in government 'income' as the economy could grow more than it ordinarily would since government expenditures are almost ALWAYS, staggeringly inefficient.

If they are just for the rich...forget it.

Trickle down is bull****...has been proven to be time after time after time.
 
What? You mean doing what the left does? Like using rates of such and such when actual numbers tell a different story? Beware? Beware of liberals claiming the past 8 years have been peachy. If they'd been peachy, we'd be talking about President Clinton. We aren't.

See, this is where the disconnect it...the numbers. The numbers don't tell a different story than the one that a subprime bubble appeared starting in 2004 and popped in 2007.


Yes, yes. And the left had absolutely nothing whatever to do with it. Tell me another story, and throw in just how great Obama did in reversing it all, too.

"The left" was not in control of Congress, the White House, or SCOTUS from 2003-7. And Obama did as much as he could with half of Congress obstructing his every move for political reasons only.


However, that what you see has no real relation to reality escapes you. There's no doubt that Keynesian economics and the top down command economy have been employed throughout the Obama years, and here we are with a stagnant economy.

So you're kinda mixing up economic policies here. Keynesian economic theory isn't "top-down" economics. It is possible for both types of economics to exist in the same space; as we have seen during the Obama years. Taxes increased only for the 1%, but that increase was going from 35% to 39.6%, which was the rate prior to 2001. Apart from that, Obama combined Keynesian with top-down that he couldn't get rid of, and that's why the economy didn't grow as well as it should have. You say corporate taxes are "highest in the world", but the reality is the effective tax rate for corporations is about 12%, which is not the "highest in the world". So while the rate may be 35%, very few if any corporations actually pay that rate. Also, corporate taxes are on profits, not revenue, so it's not like these corporations aren't still making profit with a higher tax rate.

As for small businesses, yes, there has been less small business lending since the collapse. Part of that does have to do with Dodd-Frank's regulations, but it mostly has to do with banks choosing not to loan money because they see better returns in the secondary markets, which is where they pour their money nowadays. While I oppose her politics and ideology, it will be very interesting to see how Linda McMahon does with the SBA, given the WWE's clear success story.
 
And how do I "cherry pick" facts?

When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked. One side can find facts to prove that the sky is black. The other side can find facts to prove that the sky is blue. Both sides would have facts and those facts for both sides would be cherry picked to prove their particular viewpoint. One side can cherry pick facts to prove that gun control works while the other side can cherry pick facts to prove that gun control does not work. Economics is no different. ALL facts are cherry picked.
 
One side can find facts to prove that the sky is black. The other side can find facts to prove that the sky is blue. Both sides would have facts and those facts for both sides would be cherry picked to prove their particular viewpoint. One side can cherry pick facts to prove that gun control works while the other side can cherry pick facts to prove that gun control does not work. Economics is no different. ALL facts are cherry picked.

So basically, what you're saying is that as long as you believe something to be true, it is? That's magical thinking usually reserved for children and folks who believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Stephen Colbert had a great term for that..."truthiness".
 
So basically, what you're saying is that as long as you believe something to be true, it is? That's magical thinking usually reserved for children and folks who believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Stephen Colbert had a great term for that..."truthiness".

No. I didn't say that at all. I said all facts are cherry picked. One side can present facts that the sky is black to prove their point and one side can present facts that the sky is blue to prove their point. Which side has the true facts? In case you haven't figured it out yet, both sides have correct facts to prove their points. One side is not believing something is true when it isn't. Both sides have correct "facts".
 
Which one is the fact?

This one: X=2, Y=2

You seem to be saying that X and Y are both variables. But they're not. You've already said that X=2 and Y=2 so there's no alternative fact.
 
No. I didn't say that at all. I said all facts are cherry picked.

Which, taken to its most logical conclusion, means that you can believe whatever you want to believe and simply believing it makes it fact.

I am telling you that is childish.


One side can present facts that the sky is black to prove their point and one side can present facts that the sky is blue to prove their point. Which side has the true facts?

Well, we can look with our own eyes and see that during the day, the sky is generally blue and at night, the sky is generally black. To apply your analogy to your argument, you are saying that while the sky might be blue, you think it's black. Basically, you're argument is a logical fallacy. Not like it matters, Conservatives are at the point now of "alternative facts", anyway.
 
This one: X=2, Y=2

You seem to be saying that X and Y are both variables. But they're not. You've already said that X=2 and Y=2 so there's no alternative fact.

But you want to draw conclusions. The answer 4 is the conclusion. But, there are many different facts that arrive at the conclusion. One side says X+2 equals the conclusion while the other side says that Y+2 equals the conclusion. Both sides have their cherry picked facts. Just as one side can provide facts proving most Americans favor more gun control legislation, the other side can provide facts proving Americans are not in favor of more gun control legislation.

Poll: More Americans oppose stricter gun control - CNNPolitics.com

Poll: Gun control support spikes after shooting - CNNPolitics.com
 
But you want to draw conclusions. The answer 4 is the conclusion. But, there are many different facts that arrive at the conclusion.

But the conclusion remains. And this still doesn't explain how I'm cherry picking anything. So the conclusion that can be formed from the below chart is that starting in 2004, there was a massive spike in subprime lending. Do you agree with just that conclusion?

BBB5_Subprime_Mortgage_Origination.jpg
 
Which, taken to its most logical conclusion, means that you can believe whatever you want to believe and simply believing it makes it fact.

I am telling you that is childish.




Well, we can look with our own eyes and see that during the day, the sky is generally blue and at night, the sky is generally black. To apply your analogy to your argument, you are saying that while the sky might be blue, you think it's black. Basically, you're argument is a logical fallacy. Not like it matters, Conservatives are at the point now of "alternative facts", anyway.

But one side can present facts that the sky is black more than it is blue while the other side can present facts that the sky is blue more than it is black. Which side is correct? Which side has facts that prove their case?
 
Back
Top Bottom