GDP increases 4.1 percent Q2 2018

[Conservative]

As I have said EVERY TIME you asked the same question: it's easy, when we lower taxes on rich people so they can 'keep more of what they earn,' we either have to raise taxes on the not-rich or cut services. You know what? Most Americans would rather have the rich pay more. In fact, three-quarters of Americans favor higher taxes on the wealthy.

Imagine that, people wanting someone else to pay for their personal responsibility issues? What the hell does that poll have to do with reality? There isn't enough money for the rich to fund what you want the federal govt. to spend and as I have stated over and over again I am still waiting for the TREASURY DATA showing that tax revenue dropped AFTER the tax cuts were fully implemented?? You haven't done that, why? Because you can't!!!!!

What percentage of the FEDERAL INCOME TAXES are paid by the rich now and what percentage of one's income should be taxable in Federal, State and local taxes? You make the same claims over and over again never answering direct questions therefore having zero credibility as the actual results don't support your rhetoric.

 

[Conservative]

And yet, there is plenty of evidence. You dont have to agree with it to be true. And vice versa, I dont have to agree with your 'evidence'. You have to convince me, not just say "your evidence is wrong".

All the left has to do is go to the Treasury website at treasury.org which they can get from bea.gov Govt revenue and expenditures and post the data supporting their claim but they never do that. Wonder why?? Could it be that the data doesn't support their rhetoric?

Most leftists have no understanding as to the components of GDP thus they ignore that consumer spending makes up over 60% of the GDP in this country so claiming that tax cuts don't impact economic activity is nothing more than a leftwing lie and support for a massive central govt.

 

[Conservative]

As I have said EVERY TIME you asked the same question: it's easy, when we lower taxes on rich people so they can 'keep more of what they earn,' we either have to raise taxes on the not-rich or cut services. You know what? Most Americans would rather have the rich pay more. In fact, three-quarters of Americans favor higher taxes on the wealthy.

Here is what you want to ignore and why you won't post Treasury data

Table 3.1. Government Current Receipts and Expenditures
[Billions of dollars]
Bureau of Economic Analysis
Last Revised on: July 27, 2018 - Next Release Date August 29, 2018

Line 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
Line
1 Current receipts 799.9 919.1 940.9 1002.1 1115 1217 1292.9 1406.6 1507.1
2 Current tax receipts 574.5 650.1 644.9 680.4 747 806.6 851.6 948.5 1002.6
3 Personal current taxes 299.5 345.8 354.7 352.9 377.9 417.8 437.8 489.6 505.9

1980 299.5
1981 345.8
1982 354.7
1983 352.9
1984 377.9
1985 417.8
1986 437.8
1987 489.6
1988 505.6 206.1
+68.8%

 

[MTAtech]

Imagine that, people wanting someone else to pay for their personal responsibility issues? What the hell does that poll have to do with reality? There isn't enough money for the rich to fund what you want the federal govt. to spend and as I have stated over and over again I am still waiting for the TREASURY DATA showing that tax revenue dropped AFTER the tax cuts were fully implemented?? You haven't done that, why? Because you can't!!!!!

What percentage of the FEDERAL INCOME TAXES are paid by the rich now and what percentage of one's income should be taxable in Federal, State and local taxes? You make the same claims over and over again never answering direct questions therefore having zero credibility as the actual results don't support your rhetoric.

Imagine that, Conservative pontificating that we really don't need a safety net because those people who fall through the cracks of society are just moochers. Hmmm, where did we hear that one last? Why don't you urge Republicans to run on that platform? President Romney did.

Conservative's narrative serves the interests of the wealthy conservatives. Modern conservatism uses the smoke-screen of self-reliance, individualism and character to mask policies which are self-serving, bigoted and cruel. The cadre of conservative billionaires don't want to pay higher taxes that will be used to help "those people." Thus, they invent a myth that the best way to help the poor is to NOT provide them any help at all. This way, according to them, their misery will give the poor the incentive to become educated and industrious. It has never been true.

 

[MTAtech]

Getting back to the thread and away from distractions, Steven Rattner has an op-ed in the Times, Trump’s Economic Claims Are Overblown, that clearly defines what we are seeing in the economy.

Snippets:

Yes, the economy is continuing to expand nicely, which all Americans should celebrate. But no, there’s nothing remarkable in the overall results since Mr. Trump took office. Most importantly, there is little evidence that the president’s policies have meaningfully improved the fortunes of those “forgotten” Americans who elected him.

Let’s start with the jobs numbers. While the latest figures are certainly positive, the United States has been adding jobs since well before Mr. Trump took office. And the rate of job growth during Mr. Trump’s first 19 months in office (194,000 jobs per month) is slightly less than the rate at which jobs were added during President Barack Obama’s final 19 months (205,000 per month). So the good news on jobs is the same good news Americans have been hearing for the last three years.
...

Wages:

After adjusting for inflation, wages have barely increased during the Trump presidency. When July’s Consumer Price Index is reported next week, it is likely to show that whatever modest increase workers are getting in their wages continues to be eaten up by rising prices.

Economic Growth:

Another one-time event propping up growth is the rush by farmers to export more soybeans, particularly to China, before July 6, the date when tariffs on soybeans went into effect. That accounted for about 0.6 percent of the growth in the second quarter, according to Pantheon Macroeconomics, a research firm.

Without these extraordinary interventions, the underlying rate of economic expansion in the second quarter of this year was about 2.7 percent, according to calculations by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a fiscal policy research and advocacy group.
...
Goldman Sachs, for example, forecasts that the annualized growth rate will fall to 3.3 percent in the third quarter and then taper down to 1.5 percent by the end of 2019.

 

[Conservative]

MTAtech;1068878587]Imagine that, Conservative pontificating that we really don't need a safety net because those people who fall through the cracks of society are just moochers. Hmmm, where did we hear that one last? Why don't you urge Republicans to run on that platform? President Romney did.

We have safety nets in every major community in the country called CHARITIES. Social responsibility rests in the states not the Federal Bureaucrats and only in the liberal world is a massive central govt. warranted to try and serve almost 330 million people in 50 states with 50 different costs of living

Conservative's narrative serves the interests of the wealthy conservatives. Modern conservatism uses the smoke-screen of self-reliance, individualism and character to mask policies which are self-serving, bigoted and cruel. The cadre of conservative billionaires don't want to pay higher taxes that will be used to help "those people." Thus, they invent a myth that the best way to help the poor is to NOT provide them any help at all. This way, according to them, their misery will give the poor the incentive to become educated and industrious. It has never been true.

And of course yours is to build that entitlement mentality and promote class envy and warfare. Modern conservatives even understand our Constitution and the role of the Federal, state, and local governments, none of which you seem to understand. What percentage of the Federal Income Tax revenue do the rich now pay?? Why is it that you support having a country were almost 50% of INCOME EARNERS don't pay any FEDERAL INCOME TAXES??

Talking about misery, why is it that you promote spreading liberal misery equally to everyone else?

 

[Conservative]

Getting back to the thread and away from distractions, Steven Rattner has an op-ed in the Times, Trump’s Economic Claims Are Overblown, that clearly defines what we are seeing in the economy.

Snippets:


Wages:


Economic Growth:

Expand nicely? Yep 1.5% GDP growth in 2016 to 1.2% GDP growth first qtr of 2017 to 4.1% Growth second Qtr 2018. You seem to have a problem understanding data and cannot seem to explain how Federal Income tax revenue grows after tax cuts and how almost 4 million new taxpayers have been created in 1 1/2 years. you want to credit Obama?? Great, thank you Obama for giving us Trump

 

[jonny5]

Getting back to the thread and away from distractions, Steven Rattner has an op-ed in the Times, Trump’s Economic Claims Are Overblown, that clearly defines what we are seeing in the economy.

Snippets:


Wages:


Economic Growth:

So, lets see. Good growth, continued good employment numbers, wages are up (im guessing. Youre chart doesnt have any labels. Im not seeing the problem.

 

[MTAtech]

So, lets see. Good growth, continued good employment numbers, wages are up (im guessing. Youre chart doesnt have any labels. Im not seeing the problem.

In other words -- Thanks Obama; Trump, not so much!

 

[jaeger19]

And yet, there is plenty of evidence. You dont have to agree with it to be true. And vice versa, I dont have to agree with your 'evidence'. You have to convince me, not just say "your evidence is wrong".

no.. there is not plenty of evidence. In fact I linked to that very fact.. that there is little evidence to show that tax cuts pay for themselves. Its not about whether I "agree" or disagree"
.. its really about facts and logic and the science of statistics.

Your evidence is "wrong".. because you evidence assumes that correlation means causation...
In other words.. because there is an increase in the economy.. it MUST be because of the tax cuts...

When in reality it can be all sorts of other things.

Let me explain the power and the weakness of correlation.

Okay.. your evidence exhibits the weakness of correlation.

Lets say you eat a Chinese dinner.. and get into a car accident right afterward.

that's a positive correlation.. Chinese dinner... then car accident.

that means its possible that Chinese dinners cause car accidents. But.. statistically we cannot assume this is true because there could be intervening variables \

Lets say that we ate a Chinese dinner 100 times and got into a car accident 98 times right after the Chinese dinner... that would be a very strong positive correlation.. and yep it could be that Chinese dinners cause car accidents.

But again, you cannot assume that.. .because the reason you see a correlation between Chinese dinners and car accidents.. is actually because where you go to eat your Chinese dinner is a one way street and you keep going the wrong way on it.

That's the weakness of correlation as a statistic when you see a positive correlation.


Now.. here is the power of correlation as a statistic... when you see NO correlation.

So.. Lets say that you have a Chinese dinner and you get into a car accident. a positive correlation... so you study it.. and you eat 99 more Chinese dinners.. do everything exactly the same.. and you don't end up with another car accident. In other words.. when its studied enough. there no statistical correlation.

this means that you can be reasonably assured that eating a Chinese dinner has no effect on getting into an accident.

that's the power of correlation.


So.. lets look at your evidence. You have a quarter or so where there is increased growth in the economy... and the passing of the tax cuts. So.. yes.. in a snapshot there is a correlation between passing the tax cuts and growth. BUT just like the Chinese dinner.. its based on a small sample. Which means that its validity is very weak.

NOW. when you study the effect of tax cuts historically,,, and there has been plenty of history of the US cutting taxes... the evidence shows that cutting taxes.. does not correlate with those taxes paying for themselves.

(Just like when you study more instances of eating Chinese dinners.. there is no correlation).

So.. that's why my evidence is valid... while yours is not.

Its not because of my feelings.. its because of the science of statistics.

 

[Conservative]

In other words -- Thanks Obama; Trump, not so much!

I agree with you were it not for Obama's record and legacy we wouldn't have Trump today so you are right, thank you Obama for giving us Trump. Just think a Democratic President and Congress and we can get back to those great GDP days of less than 3%, trillion dollar deficits, more social engineering, bigger and more massive central govt. thus more dependence. Now who wouldn't want those things?

 

[Conservative]

no.. there is not plenty of evidence. In fact I linked to that very fact.. that there is little evidence to show that tax cuts pay for themselves. Its not about whether I "agree" or disagree"
.. its really about facts and logic and the science of statistics.

Your evidence is "wrong".. because you evidence assumes that correlation means causation...
In other words.. because there is an increase in the economy.. it MUST be because of the tax cuts...

When in reality it can be all sorts of other things.

Let me explain the power and the weakness of correlation.

Okay.. your evidence exhibits the weakness of correlation.

Lets say you eat a Chinese dinner.. and get into a car accident right afterward.

that's a positive correlation.. Chinese dinner... then car accident.

that means its possible that Chinese dinners cause car accidents. But.. statistically we cannot assume this is true because there could be intervening variables \

Lets say that we ate a Chinese dinner 100 times and got into a car accident 98 times right after the Chinese dinner... that would be a very strong positive correlation.. and yep it could be that Chinese dinners cause car accidents.

But again, you cannot assume that.. .because the reason you see a correlation between Chinese dinners and car accidents.. is actually because where you go to eat your Chinese dinner is a one way street and you keep going the wrong way on it.

That's the weakness of correlation as a statistic when you see a positive correlation.


Now.. here is the power of correlation as a statistic... when you see NO correlation.

So.. Lets say that you have a Chinese dinner and you get into a car accident. a positive correlation... so you study it.. and you eat 99 more Chinese dinners.. do everything exactly the same.. and you don't end up with another car accident. In other words.. when its studied enough. there no statistical correlation.

this means that you can be reasonably assured that eating a Chinese dinner has no effect on getting into an accident.

that's the power of correlation.


So.. lets look at your evidence. You have a quarter or so where there is increased growth in the economy... and the passing of the tax cuts. So.. yes.. in a snapshot there is a correlation between passing the tax cuts and growth. BUT just like the Chinese dinner.. its based on a small sample. Which means that its validity is very weak.

NOW. when you study the effect of tax cuts historically,,, and there has been plenty of history of the US cutting taxes... the evidence shows that cutting taxes.. does not correlate with those taxes paying for themselves.

(Just like when you study more instances of eating Chinese dinners.. there is no correlation).

So.. that's why my evidence is valid... while yours is not.

Its not because of my feelings.. its because of the science of statistics.

So when you say tax cuts have to pay for themselves how do you explain treasury data that I posted showing FIT revenue growth AFTER three years of Reagan tax cuts? When you say tax cuts have to pay for themselves, what accounting principles are you quoting? Science of statistics? How about posting some to support your point of view?? You actually believe that people having less spendable income will grow jobs and federal revenue through economic activity? Again, seems that maybe the education system has a problem in certain areas of the country

 

[jaeger19]

So when you say tax cuts have to pay for themselves how do you explain treasury data that I posted showing FIT revenue growth AFTER three years of Reagan tax cuts?

Well.. I know you don't really understand this.. so I will make an attempt to go very slow with you..

So lets start with this:

Do you acknowledge that the economy can improve without a tax cut? .. If you do recognize that the economy can improve on its own without a tax cut... do you acknowledge that FIT revenue will likely increase if the economy improves?

Lets start there.. two easy questions.. answer them please since there is no sense in continuing if you cannot acknowledge basic economics. .

 

[jaeger19]

Imagine that, Conservative pontificating that we really don't need a safety net because those people who fall through the cracks of society are just moochers. Hmmm, where did we hear that one last? Why don't you urge Republicans to run on that platform? President Romney did.

Conservative's narrative serves the interests of the wealthy conservatives. Modern conservatism uses the smoke-screen of self-reliance, individualism and character to mask policies which are self-serving, bigoted and cruel. The cadre of conservative billionaires don't want to pay higher taxes that will be used to help "those people." Thus, they invent a myth that the best way to help the poor is to NOT provide them any help at all. This way, according to them, their misery will give the poor the incentive to become educated and industrious. It has never been true.

Just to point out.. Conservative isn;t really a conservative.. he is a right wing ideologue.

Conservatives.. real conservatives do understand that we need a safety net in this country. The question is how that safety net is applies which is a larger question.

For example... It makes sense that you can perpetuate welfare if you provide welfare in such a way that working is disadvantageous to you. it certainly makes sense to me.. that the working poor.. may find more security if they simply don't work.. rather than work in a system where they lose benefits quickly if they "go over" their welfare amount.. and then have a hard time getting back on benefits when their work situation worsens.

In addition.. it makes sense that you can perpetuate welfare issues when people apply for a welfare program that they need.. like healthcare...or heating assistance... and they are told that they have to apply for ALL available benefits and get them.. not just what they need.

 

[Conservative]

Well.. I know you don't really understand this.. so I will make an attempt to go very slow with you..

So lets start with this:

Do you acknowledge that the economy can improve without a tax cut? .. If you do recognize that the economy can improve on its own without a tax cut... do you acknowledge that FIT revenue will likely increase if the economy improves?

Lets start there.. two easy questions.. answer them please since there is no sense in continuing if you cannot acknowledge basic economics. .

Yes it can BUT it depends on the situation inherited and Reagan and Bush inherited a recession and both cut FIT and Trump inherited a 1.2% GDP growth coming off a 1.5% in 2016. A growing economy can and does increase revenue, Reagan inherited negative growth as did Bush, Trump inherited an economy as posted which was declining. All required action inserting more dollars into the hands of the number one component of GDP, consumer spending

Easy question but you haven't answered what accounting program tells you that keeping more of what you earn is an expense to anyone thus has to be paid for? Where is your answer?

 

[Conservative]

Just to point out.. Conservative isn;t really a conservative.. he is a right wing ideologue.

Conservatives.. real conservatives do understand that we need a safety net in this country. The question is how that safety net is applies which is a larger question.

For example... It makes sense that you can perpetuate welfare if you provide welfare in such a way that working is disadvantageous to you. it certainly makes sense to me.. that the working poor.. may find more security if they simply don't work.. rather than work in a system where they lose benefits quickly if they "go over" their welfare amount.. and then have a hard time getting back on benefits when their work situation worsens.

In addition.. it makes sense that you can perpetuate welfare issues when people apply for a welfare program that they need.. like healthcare...or heating assistance... and they are told that they have to apply for ALL available benefits and get them.. not just what they need.

If the characteristics of a right wing ideology means posting actual official data then I accept that title just like I point out that people like you really don't give a damn about others keeping more of what they earn as long as you get yours and the govt. continues to grow. Welfare and social problems are best handled at the state and local levels and when you take money out of those governments where do they get their dollars to fund their needs?

You believe in a massive central govt. so where did you get your education?

 

[jaeger19]

Yes it can BUT it depends on the situation inherited and Reagan and Bush inherited a recession and both cut FIT and Trump inherited a 1.2% GDP growth coming off a 1.5% in 2016. A growing economy can and does increase revenue, Reagan inherited negative growth as did Bush, Trump inherited an economy as posted which was declining. All required action inserting more dollars into the hands of the number one component of GDP, consumer spending

Easy question but you haven't answered what accounting program tells you that keeping more of what you earn is an expense to anyone thus has to be paid for? Where is your answer?

Well.. you are answering your own question.. So it depends on the situation inherited. SO . it stands to reason. that if the economy is in a recession or slump.. and it begins to recover toward its normal ( a normal correction in the economy)... there is going to be a larger increase in growth.

IF growth normal runs say 3.5%.. and it drops to 1.5%... and then there is a normal correction.. it would be expected that growth would increase rather quickly back to that normal.. in fact.. may actually rebound to 4%.. as production increases suddenly when it realizes that a recovery is really happening and meets the demand that's growing.

So right there..that can explain why you are seeing just an increase in the economy.. simply a natural correction and not due to tax cuts.

Easy question but you haven't answered what accounting program tells you that keeping more of what you earn is an expense to anyone thus has to be paid for? Where is your answer?

Well.. I figure it would be self evident.. but okay I'll help you out.

So while you are going to see an increase in revenue do to the economy getting bigger... you are NOT bringing in the revenue that you WOULD have brought in.. if you had left taxes alone.

Because if you had left taxes alone.. the economy would have increased the same.. and you would have collected more money.

So with the tax cut.. you are actually bringing in less money than you would have. Which is bad enough... but.. since you are running a deficit already... that deficit will grow even larger as costs of the debt increase (and your increase in revenue is not keeping pace with that increase in cost).

In other words.. you are further in the hole.. than you would have been if you had left well enough alone.

 

[MTAtech]

Moreover, it’s important to realize that the kind of recovery you can expect from a recession depends on the sources of that recession. There is a distinction between different types of recessions. Some recessions were brought on by the Fed, which raised rates to reduce inflation, then loosened the reins, producing a sharp V-shaped recovery. Other recessions, caused by financial meltdowns and private-sector overreach -- give the Fed and fiscal government managers a much harder time engineering recovery. This was especially true after 2007, when we hit the zero sort-of lower bound.

One can read what Christina and David Romer wrote about this here

 

[jaeger19]

If the characteristics of a right wing ideology means posting actual official data then I accept that title just like I point out that people like you really don't give a damn about others keeping more of what they earn as long as you get yours and the govt. continues to grow. Welfare and social problems are best handled at the state and local levels and when you take money out of those governments where do they get their dollars to fund their needs?

You believe in a massive central govt. so where did you get your education?

No a right wing ideology is when you hang your hat on "official data".. when you really have no clue what that data means. Which you keep showing. YOU make a huge assumptions that increases in revenue were due to the tax cuts.. and not due to other forces that were already improving the economy.

Multiple economists have examined this very question.. who actually understand what the raw data means... and have analyzed the benefit of the tax cuts.. versus other factors, and the long term effects on debt and deficit... and they evidence is pretty clear that there is little evidence that tax cuts pay for themselves.

I accept that title just like I point out that people like you really don't give a damn about others keeping more of what they earn as long as you get yours and the govt. continues to grow.

Another example of right AND left wing ideologues. You make an assumption about me that's not based on fact. There are multiple.. I mean multiple threads and posts from me.. pointing out that raising marginal taxes on the rich etc.. won't have the effects especially on inequality that liberals expect.

And in addition.. I am VERY concerned about the growth of government. YOU are the one that doesn't seem to have that issue. See below.

Welfare and social problems are best handled at the state and local levels and when you take money out of those governments where do they get their dollars to fund their needs?

Yeah.. now here is again where you expose your right wing ideology. Remember when we discussed that the federal government was taking AWAY 100% deduction for state taxes? YOU SIR WERE ALL FOR IT. YOU DECLARED IT WAS GREAT. YOU WANTED TO SEE MORE TAX MONEY GOING TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RATHER THAN STAYING WITH STATES TO HANDLE THERE OWN ISSUES.!!!

That's YOUR position. MEanwhile.. I was arguing and correctly that taxing that money twice is double taxation and it creates a GREATER welfare state where states that were solving their own problems and already sending more money to the federal government than they were taking in.... would now have to send in EVEN MORE money out of state.. and to the federal government.

And YOU WERE ARGUING THAT IT WAS GOOD THAT THE STATES HAD TO SEND MORE MONEY TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

That's your position and its well documented. Just one more example of how you are not a conservative.

 

[jaeger19]

Moreover, it’s important to realize that the kind of recovery you can expect from a recession depends on the sources of that recession. There is a distinction between different types of recessions. Some recessions were brought on by the Fed, which raised rates to reduce inflation, then loosened the reins, producing a sharp V-shaped recovery. Other recessions, caused by financial meltdowns and private-sector overreach -- give the Fed and fiscal government managers a much harder time engineering recovery. This was especially true after 2007, when we hit the zero sort-of lower bound.

One can read what Christina and David Romer wrote about this here

Yeah..you are going into way too deep a water to discuss different type of recessions. Like one that is artificially caused by the fed raising rates to much...

And a collapse of the housing market and banking system.

Way way.. to deep for certain people.

We are still trying to get some to realize that economies can improve and grow.. even without a tax cut.

And we are having trouble getting some people to realize that if you get an increase in 100 dollars in revenue.. BUT if you had left well enough alone.. you would have seen an increase in 200 dollars in revenue.. that what you did was a bad thing.

 

[Conservative]

jaeger19;1068880845]Well.. you are answering your own question.. So it depends on the situation inherited. SO . it stands to reason. that if the economy is in a recession or slump.. and it begins to recover toward its normal ( a normal correction in the economy)... there is going to be a larger increase in growth.

Yet that didn't happen with Obama, NEGATIVE 2.7% and the best he could do was 2.5% growth

IF growth normal runs say 3.5%.. and it drops to 1.5%... and then there is a normal correction.. it would be expected that growth would increase rather quickly back to that normal.. in fact.. may actually rebound to 4%.. as production increases suddenly when it realizes that a recovery is really happening and meets the demand that's growing

.

Obama never had 3% growth and coming off what you and the left called the worst recession since the great depression that was a disaster and cost him the House and then the Congress. Democrats running on the Obama record lost. Trump took the 1.2% growth he inherited and more than doubled it, Obama had absolutely nothing to do with it

So right there..that can explain why you are seeing just an increase in the economy.. simply a natural correction and not due to tax cuts.

No such explanation and certainly no answer to the question about tax cuts having to pay for themselves. What economic and accounting principle teaches that?

Well.. I figure it would be self evident.. but okay I'll help you out.

So while you are going to see an increase in revenue do to the economy getting bigger... you are NOT bringing in the revenue that you WOULD have brought in.. if you had left taxes alone.

How do you know it would have brought in the revenue you claim? You think we would have had almost 17 million new taxpayers without the Reagan tax cuts? Prove it?? that is where the revenue growth came from but then again you don't understand the components of GDP

Because if you had left taxes alone.. the economy would have increased the same.. and you would have collected more money.

So consumers spend more money when taxes are higher than when they were cut? LOL

So with the tax cut.. you are actually bringing in less money than you would have. Which is bad enough... but.. since you are running a deficit already... that deficit will grow even larger as costs of the debt increase (and your increase in revenue is not keeping pace with that increase in cost).

That is your opinion so keep bobbing and weaving without answering the question and admitting you are wrong. there is no way of proving that the revenue would have been greater without the tax cuts. More leftwing predictions that ignore consumer spending THE NUMBER ONE COMPONENT OF GDP AND REVENUE CREATOR.

In other words.. you are further in the hole.. than you would have been if you had left well enough alone

.

Wrong, your poorly educated opinion based solely on your ideology when leftwing predictions are wrong, why aren't apologizes given? Tell me again how state and local governments get more tax revenue when Federal taxes are raised? Where does the money come from?? Tell us exactly why a federal bureaucrat needs the money more than your state and local government? Keep buying the leftwing spin, lies, and distortions. The public gets it, when will you?

 

[Conservative]

jaeger19;1068880896]No a right wing ideology is when you hang your hat on "official data".. when you really have no clue what that data means. Which you keep showing. YOU make a huge assumptions that increases in revenue were due to the tax cuts.. and not due to other forces that were already improving the economy.

The problem is you cannot prove that tax cuts didn't increase economic activity and the revenue nor can you show where tax cuts actually cut tax revenue. FIT taxes were cut and FIT Revenue grew, how did that happen? You think normal activity would have grown FIT revenue over 60% with three years of tax cuts?? You are naïve, gullible, and very poorly informed

Multiple economists have examined this very question.. who actually understand what the raw data means... and have analyzed the benefit of the tax cuts.. versus other factors, and the long term effects on debt and deficit... and they evidence is pretty clear that there is little evidence that tax cuts pay for themselves.

Still waiting for the accounting principles that claim tax cuts or people keeping more of what they earn have to be paid for and even if that was true you have yet to post the revenue showing that tax cuts actually hurt revenue thus growing revenue cannot cause deficits, spending does.

Another example of right AND left wing ideologues. You make an assumption about me that's not based on fact. There are multiple.. I mean multiple threads and posts from me.. pointing out that raising marginal taxes on the rich etc.. won't have the effects especially on inequality that liberals expect.

Another question, what percentage of ones income should be taken in FEDERAL, STATE, and LOCAL taxes?? your focus remains on the federal taxes, not state and local totally ignoring that states cannot print money thus higher federal taxes paid by citizens of the state cost the state and local communities. Economists you quote never post the actual data just like you and always make predictions. Treasury is the source for data, post it or apologize!!

And in addition.. I am VERY concerned about the growth of government. YOU are the one that doesn't seem to have that issue. See below

.

Didn't seem to bother you when Obama did it, Federal employment went up under Obama, states had to cut employment

Yeah.. now here is again where you expose your right wing ideology. Remember when we discussed that the federal government was taking AWAY 100% deduction for state taxes? YOU SIR WERE ALL FOR IT. YOU DECLARED IT WAS GREAT. YOU WANTED TO SEE MORE TAX MONEY GOING TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RATHER THAN STAYING WITH STATES TO HANDLE THERE OWN ISSUES.!!!

And I remain for it as finally the radical left will realize the cost of all those social programs they want. You keep making this **** up as what you pay in state and local taxes has absolutely nothing to do with federal taxes. You want the federal taxpayers to subsidize programs you authorize in your state thus reducing your federal obligations showing again that you always want someone else to pay for your personal responsibility and choice issues.

That's YOUR position. MEanwhile.. I was arguing and correctly that taxing that money twice is double taxation and it creates a GREATER welfare state where states that were solving their own problems and already sending more money to the federal government than they were taking in.... would now have to send in EVEN MORE money out of state.. and to the federal government.

You continue to show how poorly educated and informed the radical left is as I have explained and you continue to ignore

And YOU WERE ARGUING THAT IT WAS GOOD THAT THE STATES HAD TO SEND MORE MONEY TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

States don't send money to the federal govt. citizens do and as stated you want the federal taxpayers to fund your state social programs

That's your position and its well documented. Just one more example of how you are not a conservative.

Conservatives know that people keeping more of what they earn isn't an expense. Conservatives know that states and local communities should take care of their own social problems, and conservatives know that Keynesian spending going to the private sector during a recession shortens the recession, creates jobs, and grows the economy.

 

[Conservative]

Moreover, it’s important to realize that the kind of recovery you can expect from a recession depends on the sources of that recession. There is a distinction between different types of recessions. Some recessions were brought on by the Fed, which raised rates to reduce inflation, then loosened the reins, producing a sharp V-shaped recovery. Other recessions, caused by financial meltdowns and private-sector overreach -- give the Fed and fiscal government managers a much harder time engineering recovery. This was especially true after 2007, when we hit the zero sort-of lower bound.

One can read what Christina and David Romer wrote about this here

Awesome Christina(stimulus will not allow unemployment to exceed 8%) Romer is a great source of inaccurate information

 

[jaeger19]

Yet that didn't happen with Obama, NEGATIVE 2.7% and the best he could do was 2.5% growth
?

Yep.. he inherited it when it was going into recession.. a very deep one that was caused by a collapse of the housing market and subsequent crash.. and one that was world wide as well.

Obama never had 3% growth and coming off what you and the left called the worst recession since the great depression

Yep.. it was a deep recession with a lot of fundamental problems.. AS a conservative.. I understand that the federal government is not the be all end all of the economy. the economy is a lot bigger than the federal government and its going to run according to the market.. and not just because of the President and government.

You seem to put a huge stock in the government being the most important factor in the economy and that the economy is the purview of the federal government. Please explain how that's a conservative view... a bigger federal government that's supposed to be responsible for the economy.

How do you know it would have brought in the revenue you claim? You think we would have had almost 17 million new taxpayers without the Reagan tax cuts? Prove it?? that is where the revenue growth came from but then again you don't understand the components of GDP

Well you analyze all the other factors in the economy and not simply raw data from revenue. You see other growth factors. changes in interest rates.. demand.. so forth.. and you understand what growth would be projected based on those factors.. than you see what growth can be attributed to tax cuts. Then you analyze that against the loss of revenue that is attributed to lower rates.

Not.. doing what you are.. which is assuming that tax cuts pay for themselves.

Prove it? Multiple people.. including myself has posted links to economists that have done just that.. and shown there is little evidence that tax cuts pay for themselves.

So consumers spend more money when taxes are higher than when they were cut? LOL

Yeah.. absolutely that can happen. Taxes were higher before Obama.. 1/3 of the ARRA was tax cuts.

Taxes were much higher in 2001 to 2004 than after the ARRA..

And spending. was much higher in 2001 to 2004 maybe 2005 because the economy was so much better... despite taxes being higher.

Why can't you understand that taxes are not the only factor in determining demand? This is not that hard for you to understand.

A great economy.. with high wages.. and high taxes and low unemployment.. is likely going to spend more..

than a cruddy economy with high unemployment and low taxes. A tax cut certainly helps a person spend more... but going from no job.. to having a good paying job.. certainly helps them spend exponentially more.

Why can't you understand simple economic facts?

That is your opinion so keep bobbing and weaving without answering the question and admitting you are wrong. there is no way of proving that the revenue would have been greater without the tax cuts.

Sure there is.. you can statistically analyze the growth you would expect based on the factors you have.. then the effect of the tax cut and analyze it versus the cost of deficit spending. etc.

Wrong, your poorly educated opinion based solely on your ideology when leftwing predictions are wrong, why aren't apologizes given

?

Well my opinion is not based on opinion but follows what the preponderance of evidence says.. which is that tax cuts pay for themselves.

Tell me again how state and local governments get more tax revenue when Federal taxes are raised?

Well... SINCE YOU ARE THE ONE THAT SUPPORTS FEDERAL TAXES BEING RAISED BY REDUCING THE FEDERAL EXEMPTION FOR STATE TAXES... you should be the one explaining why you want the federal government to get more of the states and local money..

Not me.. since I am definitely against reducing the deduction for state income taxes.. I am definitely against double taxation...

So you sir.. please explain to us all.. IF YOU WANT LESS MONEY TO GO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT... WHY DO YOU SUPPORT REDUCING THE EXEMPTION FOR STATE TAXES AND THUS SUPPORT DOUBLE TAXATION AND MORE MONEY BEING TRANSFERED TO THE FEDS!!!!

So sir.. you please explain why YOU think that a federal bureaucrat needs the money more than my state and local government.

YOU SIR ARE THE ONE THAT SUPPORTS SUCH A THING.. ITS WELL DOCUMENTED THAT YOU SUPPORT TRUMP REDUCING THE DEDUCTION FOR STATE INCOME TAXES!!!!!

 

[Conservative]

jaeger19;1068881017]Yep.. he inherited it when it was going into recession.. a very deep one that was caused by a collapse of the housing market and subsequent crash.. and one that was world wide as well.

We went into recession in DECEMBER 2007 not when Obama came into office and in fact came out of recession in June, Let Wall Street Journal explain what Obama did

https://wallstreetpit.com/13300-what-ended-the-great-recession/

Yep.. it was a deep recession with a lot of fundamental problems.. AS a conservative.. I understand that the federal government is not the be all end all of the economy. the economy is a lot bigger than the federal government and its going to run according to the market.. and not just because of the President and government.

It was a deep FOREIGN RECESSION because foreign governments rely too much on Govt. spending

You seem to put a huge stock in the government being the most important factor in the economy and that the economy is the purview of the federal government. Please explain how that's a conservative view... a bigger federal government that's supposed to be responsible for the economy.

what the hell are you talking about. Reagan and Bush motivated the private sector, Obama bailed out the public sector. you don't seem to grasp the difference

Well you analyze all the other factors in the economy and not simply raw data from revenue. You see other growth factors. changes in interest rates.. demand.. so forth.. and you understand what growth would be projected based on those factors.. than you see what growth can be attributed to tax cuts. Then you analyze that against the loss of revenue that is attributed to lower rates.

You have done no such analysis and refuse to answer direct questions. What a waste of time

Not.. doing what you are.. which is assuming that tax cuts pay for themselves.

Prove it?

Multiple people.. including myself has posted links to economists that have done just that.. and shown there is little evidence that tax cuts pay for themselves.

Don't have to as data does it for me PLUS the reality that tax cuts aren't an expense and only expenses have to be paid for. the education system that taught you that is an embarrassment

Yeah.. absolutely that can happen. Taxes were higher before Obama.. 1/3 of the ARRA was tax cuts.

No they weren't rebates aren't tax cuts, and the other tax cuts had strings attached. You buy what you are told and that makes you look foolish

Taxes were much higher in 2001 to 2004 than after the ARRA..

Bush tax cuts fully implemented July 2003 so once again you are wrong. Rebates ARENT tax cuts

Why can't you understand that taxes are not the only factor in determining demand? This is not that hard for you to understand.

Why don't you understand the components of GDP?

A great economy.. with high wages.. and high taxes and low unemployment.. is likely going to spend more..

Didn't happen during the Obama term and therein lies the problem and why he lost the Congress

than a cruddy economy with high unemployment and low taxes. A tax cut certainly helps a person spend more... but going from no job.. to having a good paying job.. certainly helps them spend exponentially more.

You seem to have a problem keeping more of what you earn so send yours back

Why can't you understand simple economic facts?

Seems rather simple to me, consumer spending depends on spendable income and tax cuts offer more spendable income to the consumers. Works all the time. Address the revenue issue with tax cuts using Treasury data. You are wrong and the deeper you dig your hole the more foolish you look

Well my opinion is not based on opinion but follows what the preponderance of evidence says.. which is that tax cuts pay for themselves.

You have offered opinions no evidenc

Well... SINCE YOU ARE THE ONE THAT SUPPORTS FEDERAL TAXES BEING RAISED BY REDUCING THE FEDERAL EXEMPTION FOR STATE TAXES... you should be the one explaining why you want the federal government to get more of the states and local money..

You obviously have no idea what a deduction is and believe that you should be able to deduct your state and local taxes from your federal return. How liberal of you. It isn't about paying more in Federal taxes it is about paying your fair share and blue states aren't doing that as their state and local taxes are higher thus creating more deductions

Sorry but you are nothing more than a typical liberal too biased and partisan to understand the private sector and what drives it. Rather sad to see someone who claims to run a business be so poorly informed