Democrats get caught lying about GOP tax cut

MTAtech · Nov 9, 2017

HowardBThiname said:
What I find irrational is aligning oneself with Krugman's views even after evidence that he is among the most, if not the most, politically biased economic columnist. You simply cannot establish credibility with his type of track record.

I've already posted links to evidence showing that tax cuts can boost the economy, and explained to you how a larger work force can create like revenue even after individual tax cuts.

Sometimes, I get the feeling that some folks are so politically biased, that no amount of evidence will result in them considering other opinions.

What you call "bias" I call taking the body of available facts and deriving a position. Krugman has a liberal bend, as do I, because that's where the facts take us.

The "evidence" that you mention above, was about John F. Kennedy cutting the tax-rate and noticing economic growth. What's telling about that is not that correlation isn't evidence of causation but that you needed to go back 56 years to find something that helps your case. What you conveniently ignored was the many, many examples since then that find no correlation between tax-cuts and economic growth. Among that evidence was all modern presidents plus the state of Kansas, that slashed taxes, got no economic benefit, but did blow a huge hole in their deficit. You can pretend that you are objective and have no bias but the reality is that you are biased to prove that tax-cuts are the magic elixir that boosts economic output. As such, you are willing to grasp for any straw that helps your argument while brushing aside any evidence to the contrary.

My question is why? I can understand that if you were a millionaire or billionaire, you'd try to make whatever case that you can for why middle-class American should support tax-cuts on the rich. If we assume that you are middle-class, then why do you have a desire to shill for the elite -- arguing against the tide of evidence that concludes that such tax-cuts are of no help and probably hurt the country?

MTAtech · Nov 9, 2017

HowardBThiname said:
All income taxes punish taxpayers who vote. Evening the playing field isn't wrong -- it's a practice in a more even-handed tax system.

I contend that the playing field was more even before. The basic facts are, to pass their immense tax giveaway to the rich without Democrats, Republicans need to ensure their plan would add no more than $1.5 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. To do so, they’re cutting billions of dollars in tax benefits to people trying to raise children, pay for college, buy a home or invest in renewable energy. Thus, the Republican tax-plan is nothing less than Robin Hood in reverse -- taking from the middle-class and giving it to the rich.

HowardBThiname said:
Taxing something a parent gives a child is ludicrous, but the exemption for that will not benefit those who inherit large estates, only the little guys.

Current estate taxes are taxes on estates worth $11 million for a couple. Perhaps we differ on our definition of "little guy."

HowardBThiname said:
It's intellectually dishonest to say those states are being subsidized, because that money does not go to benefit the state coffers - rather it goes to maintain the federal investments.

No at all. I live in a state that sends more money to Washington than we get back. Other states, usually rural red states, get more from Washington that they send. If you take away deductions that end up raising my federal taxes, I am not sending even more money to Washington and the beneficiaries are those that didn't get their taxes increased.

HowardBThiname · Nov 9, 2017

MTAtech said:
What you call "bias" I call taking the body of available facts and deriving a position. Krugman has a liberal bend, as do I, because that's where the facts take us.

The "evidence" that you mention above, was about John F. Kennedy cutting the tax-rate and noticing economic growth. What's telling about that is not that correlation isn't evidence of causation but that you needed to go back 56 years to find something that helps your case. What you conveniently ignored was the many, many examples since then that find no correlation between tax-cuts and economic growth. Among that evidence was all modern presidents plus the state of Kansas, that slashed taxes, got no economic benefit, but did blow a huge hole in their deficit. You can pretend that you are objective and have no bias but the reality is that you are biased to prove that tax-cuts are the magic elixir that boosts economic output. As such, you are willing to grasp for any straw that helps your argument while brushing aside any evidence to the contrary.

My question is why? I can understand that if you were a millionaire or billionaire, you'd try to make whatever case that you can for why middle-class American should support tax-cuts on the rich. If we assume that you are middle-class, then why do you have a desire to shill for the elite -- arguing against the tide of evidence that concludes that such tax-cuts are of no help and probably hurt the country?

The biggest cuts in this bill will be realized by the middle class and the lower-middle class. That's huge.

A liberal bias is not a problem unless it blinds ones to the facts and the effect thereof.

HowardBThiname · Nov 9, 2017

MTAtech said:
I contend that the playing field was more even before. The basic facts are, to pass their immense tax giveaway to the rich without Democrats, Republicans need to ensure their plan would add no more than $1.5 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. To do so, they’re cutting billions of dollars in tax benefits to people trying to raise children, pay for college, buy a home or invest in renewable energy. Thus, the Republican tax-plan is nothing less than Robin Hood in reverse -- taking from the middle-class and giving it to the rich.

The only colleges that will be affected are those with more than $100K of assets per student. We're talking mainly Ivy Leagues here, not community colleges and state colleges where most students attend. The protection of endowments for those elitist colleges do nothing but further separate the students into classes.

The "buying a home" thing is also bogus, but getting rid of the mortgage tax only affects those with homes valued over $500K. You're coming down on the side of protecting the wealthy at the expense of the middle class.

The protection of investments in renewable energy is also a bogus excuse. Why not protect all of the investors on Wall St? Once again, it favors the wealthy.

I am concerned about the child tax credit. That needs to be revisited.

By the way, Robin Hood, despite the hoopla, was a common thief. (The legend, that is. He didn't actually exist.)

Current estate taxes are taxes on estates worth $11 million for a couple. Perhaps we differ on our definition of "little guy."
No at all. I live in a state that sends more money to Washington than we get back. Other states, usually rural red states, get more from Washington that they send. If you take away deductions that end up raising my federal taxes, I am not sending even more money to Washington and the beneficiaries are those that didn't get their taxes increased.

It doesn't matter if you live "in a state that sends more money to Washington" that it gets back. As an individual, you are not subject to higher federal taxes. You are liable for the same amount of federal taxes as every other citizen in your bracket.

I do agree that you will feel the crunch more, and I feel for you, but then again, you've been receiving an unfair benefit up to now. That's not justifiable. The new bill, if it passes, will even that out. You will be treated the same on your taxes as every other American is -- no more free rides.

You do want equality, don't you?

MTAtech · Nov 9, 2017

HowardBThiname said:
The only colleges that will be affected are those with more than $100K of assets per student. We're talking mainly Ivy Leagues here, not community colleges and state colleges where most students attend. The protection of endowments for those elitist colleges do nothing but further separate the students into classes.

The "buying a home" thing is also bogus, but getting rid of the mortgage tax only affects those with homes valued over $500K. You're coming down on the side of protecting the wealthy at the expense of the middle class.

The protection of investments in renewable energy is also a bogus excuse. Why not protect all of the investors on Wall St? Once again, it favors the wealthy.

I am concerned about the child tax credit. That needs to be revisited.

By the way, Robin Hood, despite the hoopla, was a common thief. (The legend, that is. He didn't actually exist.)

It doesn't matter if you live "in a state that sends more money to Washington" that it gets back. As an individual, you are not subject to higher federal taxes. You are liable for the same amount of federal taxes as every other citizen in your bracket.

I do agree that you will feel the crunch more, and I feel for you, but then again, you've been receiving an unfair benefit up to now. That's not justifiable. The new bill, if it passes, will even that out. You will be treated the same on your taxes as every other American is -- no more free rides.

You do want equality, don't you?

These below are from the Times:

The bill repeals numerous education deductions and credits. It also makes taxable the value of the tuition and other benefits universities give to their graduate teaching and research assistants. Ditto for education benefits offered by employers to their workers. Who cares about educating the next generation when you can bring in an extra $65 billion as offsets for an enormous corporate tax cut.

The Republicans want to end a program that lets state and local governments issue private-activity bonds to finance housing and let homeowners claim a tax credit on certain mortgages. This could reduce new affordable housing construction and renovations of existing properties, experts say. Chalk up $38.9 billion for tax cuts.

The House bill would get rid of a $7,500 tax credit for electric car purchases starting with vehicles that hit the road next year; the measure would bring in a modest $200 million.
The production tax credit for renewable energy will become less valuable under the Republican proposal, raising $12.3 billion in revenue.

As I said before, the GOP wants to cut taxes on the rich and need to do it without Democrats, who won't let them. Therefore, they need to find a way to only limit the increase in the 10 year deficit to $1.5 trillion (so much for the debt being an issue) and can only achieve that by taking away deductions from the middle-class. Summary: Give to the rich and take it from the middle-class.

HowardBThiname · Nov 9, 2017

MTAtech said:
These below are from the Times:

As I said before, the GOP wants to cut taxes on the rich and need to do it without Democrats, who won't let them. Therefore, they need to find a way to only limit the increase in the 10 year deficit to $1.5 trillion (so much for the debt being an issue) and can only achieve that by taking away deductions from the middle-class. Summary: Give to the rich and take it from the middle-class.

Yes, you've said that repeatedly, but the facts don't support your theory.

MTAtech · Nov 9, 2017

HowardBThiname said:
Yes, you've said that repeatedly, but the facts don't support your theory.

I've loaded by posts with citations but if those aren't sufficient facts that support my (and other's) theory, then we will need to take a tip from Boris the Animal, and agree to disagree.

HowardBThiname · Nov 9, 2017

MTAtech said:
I've loaded by posts with citations but if those aren't sufficient facts that support my (and other's) theory, then we will need to take a tip from Boris the Animal, and agree to disagree.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. But, I've enjoyed the conversation.

jonny5 · Nov 9, 2017

MTAtech said:
So, your proposal is for the poor to pay for their own benefits through higher taxes? The idea of redistribution is to tax those who are economically doing well and pay for those who fall through the cracks. You plan is antithetical to established policy that even Reagan accepted.

Yeah, Reagan was wrong too. My proposal is to eliminate all federal benefits that are not general. Thus no need to pay for them. Defense is a general benefit. Food stamps are not.

MTAtech · Nov 9, 2017

jonny5 said:
Yeah, Reagan was wrong too. My proposal is to eliminate all federal benefits that are not general. Thus no need to pay for them. Defense is a general benefit. Food stamps are not.

I don't think you will get much support for eliminating Social Security and Medicare. Seniors vote. Moreover, those two programs work very well and help a great number of people. The same thing for SNAP (e.g. Food Stamps) it helps a lot of people.

Where we disagree is on values. I believe that America should have a safety net and programs that help the average person live in a dignified way -- and that the safety net should be paid with taxes on those that are doing very well. You seem to believe that taxes are theft and tyranny. I think there are a lot more important moral issues in the world than defending the right of the rich to keep more of their money.

JasperL · Nov 10, 2017

HowardBThiname said:
Because many economists are unsure. Yet, when you compare those who felt sure enough to either or disagree, a vastly higher number agreed than disagreed. That says something.

Right, but what they agreed on was that fiscal stimulus, Keynesian stimulus, in the form of tax cuts boosts the economy in the short term - 5 years. Average GDP growth of 3.05% versus 3.0% means they were right, but such a small increase in growth would have little effect on tax revenues. A nominal $1 of tax cuts might only cost 98 cents or something, with 2 cents per dollar of "static" revenue loss offset by the higher rate of growth in year 5.

There were ZERO economists who believed that tax revenues would be higher 5 years out. i.e. that tax cuts pay for themselves, and very few (2) who even admitted to being "unsure" and one of them noted the obvious that lower rates applied to higher earnings could theoretically produce higher revenue. Well, no kidding but it's not really answering the question.

JasperL · Nov 10, 2017

HowardBThiname said:
Absolutely!

I'm not saying Krugman didn't deserve the award for his Trade Theory, that was a decent analysis, but he's become a political hack in the years since he won that. His illogical push of Hillary and his constant attacks on Bernie Sanders sealed his fate with many democrats.

Absolutely, I reject his theory on tax cuts -- he's lost his marbles.

But he said that the evidence is tax cuts will increase output slightly, but not pay for themselves. Which part do you disagree with? If it's the latter (tax cuts pay for themselves), you cannot cite any legitimate study to back up your opinion, and countless studies and real life contradict that silly notion.

And Krugman's views mirror the consensus view of the economists you cited earlier. The only dispute is over how large the added growth in GDP will be five years out. So on what basis has he "lost his marbles" on this subject?

One study conducted at George Mason University put him as the most biased economist based on political leanings. That effectivly undermines what he writes today.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...n-nations-most-partisan-economist-study-finds

First of all, that study was pretty lame. It was a cherry picked analysis of comments by various economists, and used from what I could see are pretty subjective methods of evaluating their view on deficit spending. And "biased" meant wasn't consistent. But even if you accept the premise and conclusions, whether deficits are sometimes desirable or not, and whether an economist changes their views depending on which party sits in the WH (the only question studied) doesn't affect the general observations about what happens to deficits and/or debt when tax rates are cut or raised. Furthermore, there is no more biased economist writing today than people like Stephen Moore at Heritage or Art Laffer who maintain a belief in the Tax Fairy (tax cuts pay for themselves) despite ZERO evidence that's true at anything near current rates.

JasperL · Nov 10, 2017

HowardBThiname said:
Taxing something a parent gives a child is ludicrous, but the exemption for that will not benefit those who inherit large estates, only the little guys.

The House plan eliminated the estate tax and kept step up in basis at death rules. Those are MASSIVE loopholes for the largest estates - a dream come true for the plutocrats and the idea of a permanent American aristocracy. The Senate proposal 'only' doubles the current exemption to $11/22 million for individuals and couples.

That's a common misconception. Yes, some blue states pay more in taxes than the federal govt. allots back to the state, but the red states are being "subsidized." Those funds are used to maintain federal lands and facilities within those states. The states, themselves, would much rather be able to control the lands within their borders, but they are not allowed to do so. This includes military facilities, national parks and other government lands. Nevada has been fighting the federal govt. on that for decades.

It's intellectually dishonest to say those states are being subsidized, because that money does not go to benefit the state coffers - rather it goes to maintain the federal investments.

That's not true, actually. Lots of red states in the Southeast don't have big tracts of federal land, and they get more back in spending because they are poor states with low per-capita income, lots of people on benefits and far fewer wealthy than blue states. They are straight up transfers of tax dollars.

If you want to prove your point with some evidence, you can try but I don't think you'll be able to do it. I've looked and never found any support for your assertion there. Nor would we expect to - it just makes common sense that some states will pay more in taxes than they'll get back in Federal spending, and those states with higher per capita income are more likely to pay more than they receive because of math, how benefits flow, from the rich to the poor, and so from relatively rich states to relatively poor states. Under what theory would Mississippi pay more in income taxes than their poor residents receive in benefits?

jonny5 · Nov 13, 2017

MTAtech said:
I don't think you will get much support for eliminating Social Security and Medicare. Seniors vote. Moreover, those two programs work very well and help a great number of people. The same thing for SNAP (e.g. Food Stamps) it helps a lot of people.

Where we disagree is on values. I believe that America should have a safety net and programs that help the average person live in a dignified way -- and that the safety net should be paid with taxes on those that are doing very well. You seem to believe that taxes are theft and tyranny. I think there are a lot more important moral issues in the world than defending the right of the rich to keep more of their money.

Yeah well, we arent arguing political reality, just our own opinions on how things should be. And I dont think taxes are theft or tyranny in general. Only in how they are specifically applied in the US. I dont have a problem with your preference for socialism, only in how its been forced on me. The safety net was never authorized by the states. Put it to ratification, and you would probably lose.

Oborosen · Nov 20, 2017

countryboy said:
I am shocked. SHOCKED I TELL YA!

I thought Trump was the liar.

Oh he is a liar, just not too the extent they try so very hard to prove.

Now it seems like they are trying to outdo the record they believe he has..

MTAtech · Nov 20, 2017

The thread is about 'Democrats caught lying about the GOP tax-cut" but everything that I read from independent non-partisan analytical groups confirm that the Democrats are right. The GOP tax-cut is for the rich and corporations and in 2026 the middle class will be paying a higher rate than they do now. Where is the lie?

bubbabgone · Nov 20, 2017

MTAtech said:
The thread is about 'Democrats caught lying about the GOP tax-cut" but everything that I read from independent non-partisan analytical groups confirm that the Democrats are right. The GOP tax-cut is for the rich and corporations and in 2026 the middle class will be paying a higher rate than they do now. Where is the lie?

The information one seeks
can be found in the OP
... but one must look

worksforpigs · Nov 20, 2017

If Democrats weren't caught lying about the GOP, it would be shocking.

They lie about everything. They play the race and gender card every election cycle to frighten people to the polls.

What else is new?

MTAtech · Nov 20, 2017

worksforpigs said:
If Democrats weren't caught lying about the GOP, it would be shocking.

They lie about everything. They play the race and gender card every election cycle to frighten people to the polls.

What else is new?

Ah, it's the Democrats that lie. "The difference is that while Democratic programs may or may not be a good idea, the bills they write that they say will expand the provision of social services in the United States really do expand the provision of social services." One the GOP side, Trump calls the GOP plan a "middle class tax-cut" when the vast amount of cuts are in the top bracket, in both dollars and percent. If the GOP tax plan is so good, why do they lie so much about it?

It’s obvious that if you cut a tax that’s only paid by married couples who’ve amassed at least $11 million that you are helping rich people. It’s obvious that if you enact a special discount tax rate for people who own LLCs then you are helping Donald Trump, who owns a ton of them. And it’s obvious that if part of your plan is permanent and part of it is temporary, and the part you made temporary is the part that helps the middle class, then helping the middle class wasn’t your priority.

"Playing the race card": Oh, you mean like when the GOP vilifies Mexicans as rapists and murders?
"Gender Card": It wasn't the Democrats that made a fuss about transgender bathrooms.
"frighten people to the polls": You mean like when Republicans tell voters that Democrats want to take your guns away?

It's like you looked in the mirror and assigned everything that Republicans do to the Democrats.

Democrats get caught lying about GOP tax cut

Doctor D