How Are We Gonna Pay for the $7.9 Trillion that Obama Added to the National Debt?

[danielpalos]

The less money this huge, unaccountable, and bankrupt government has to waste, the better.

end the drug war.

 

[imawhosure]

why are we still running deficits and cutting taxes for the rich and adding to the debt?

Why don't you guys just go away!

You have ALL been asked repeatedly to show where a federal tax cut has cost the government money, and not a ONE of you has been able to.

Until you can, your narrative on that is null and void!

Taxes were cut in 1981 and 1982 and federal income tax revenues declined both of those years. Taxes were cut in 2001, 2002 and 203 and federal income tax revenues declined those years.

Liar! Show me where-) Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 - Tax Foundation

Your own link shows it. Though I apologize, I got 1 of the years wrong. I said federal income tax revenue fell in 1981 and 1982, but it was 1982 and 1983.

LOL, I was waiting, I really was, I did it on purpose-)

You see, I like when you guys pounce-)

But you see, the chart I gave you was revenue by source so you would, lol.

Now let us see how much the government ACTUALLY took in counting ALL revenues, shall we-) I am hoping all Leftists are licking their chops, I really am!

Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1980-2007 - Federal State Local Data

Now if everyone looks, in 2003 Bush moved the tax cuts from 2006. What happened to total revenue.

Also notice, what happened AFTER Clinton cut the tax in 1997?

Show us the loss, show it to us please-)

 

[danielpalos]

why are we still running deficits and cutting taxes for the rich and adding to the debt?

Why don't you guys just go away!

You have ALL been asked repeatedly to show where a federal tax cut has cost the government money, and not a ONE of you has been able to.

Until you can, your narrative on that is null and void!

Taxes were cut in 1981 and 1982 and federal income tax revenues declined both of those years. Taxes were cut in 2001, 2002 and 203 and federal income tax revenues declined those years.

Liar! Show me where-) Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 - Tax Foundation

Your own link shows it. Though I apologize, I got 1 of the years wrong. I said federal income tax revenue fell in 1981 and 1982, but it was 1982 and 1983.

LOL, I was waiting, I really was, I did it on purpose-)

You see, I like when you guys pounce-)

But you see, the chart I gave you was revenue by source so you would, lol.

Now let us see how much the government ACTUALLY took in counting ALL revenues, shall we-) I am hoping all Leftists are licking their chops, I really am!

Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1980-2007 - Federal State Local Data

Taxes are a lagging indicator and we have different governments and different taxes in the several States.

In any case, you have not shown that revenue would have been lower than what was obtained, if taxes had been left at the same rate from prior years. Holding for constant growth, we lost revenue by lowering taxes.

 

[imawhosure]

Why don't you guys just go away!

You have ALL been asked repeatedly to show where a federal tax cut has cost the government money, and not a ONE of you has been able to.

Until you can, your narrative on that is null and void!

Taxes were cut in 1981 and 1982 and federal income tax revenues declined both of those years. Taxes were cut in 2001, 2002 and 203 and federal income tax revenues declined those years.

Liar! Show me where-) Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 - Tax Foundation

Your own link shows it. Though I apologize, I got 1 of the years wrong. I said federal income tax revenue fell in 1981 and 1982, but it was 1982 and 1983.

LOL, I was waiting, I really was, I did it on purpose-)

You see, I like when you guys pounce-)

But you see, the chart I gave you was revenue by source so you would, lol.

Now let us see how much the government ACTUALLY took in counting ALL revenues, shall we-) I am hoping all Leftists are licking their chops, I really am!

Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1980-2007 - Federal State Local Data

Taxes are a lagging indicator and we have different governments and different taxes in the several States.

In any case, you have not shown that revenue would have been lower than what was obtained, if taxes had been left at the same from prior years. Holding for constant growth, we lost revenue by lowering taxes.

But growth wasn't constant, now was it-) In fact, it caused a massive economic explosion, didn't it!

And of course, you want me to prove a negative........like what would have happened, lol.

That is NOT the point! I am not trying to prove YOUR point of what would have happened, I am proving MY point, of what actually did! And it wasn't revenue fell, now is it-)

 

[danielpalos]

Taxes were cut in 1981 and 1982 and federal income tax revenues declined both of those years. Taxes were cut in 2001, 2002 and 203 and federal income tax revenues declined those years.

Liar! Show me where-) Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 - Tax Foundation

Your own link shows it. Though I apologize, I got 1 of the years wrong. I said federal income tax revenue fell in 1981 and 1982, but it was 1982 and 1983.

LOL, I was waiting, I really was, I did it on purpose-)

You see, I like when you guys pounce-)

But you see, the chart I gave you was revenue by source so you would, lol.

Now let us see how much the government ACTUALLY took in counting ALL revenues, shall we-) I am hoping all Leftists are licking their chops, I really am!

Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1980-2007 - Federal State Local Data

Taxes are a lagging indicator and we have different governments and different taxes in the several States.

In any case, you have not shown that revenue would have been lower than what was obtained, if taxes had been left at the same from prior years. Holding for constant growth, we lost revenue by lowering taxes.

But growth wasn't constant, now was it-) In fact, it caused a massive economic explosion, didn't it!

And of course, you want me to prove a negative........like what would have happened, lol.

That is NOT the point! I am not trying to prove YOUR point of what would have happened, I am proving MY point, of what actually did! And it wasn't revenue fell, now is it-)

inducing boom and bust cycles and bailing out the rich, is not very capitalistic.

 

[imawhosure]

Taxes were cut in 1981 and 1982 and federal income tax revenues declined both of those years. Taxes were cut in 2001, 2002 and 203 and federal income tax revenues declined those years.

Liar! Show me where-) Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 - Tax Foundation

Your own link shows it. Though I apologize, I got 1 of the years wrong. I said federal income tax revenue fell in 1981 and 1982, but it was 1982 and 1983.

LOL, I was waiting, I really was, I did it on purpose-)

You see, I like when you guys pounce-)

But you see, the chart I gave you was revenue by source so you would, lol.

Now let us see how much the government ACTUALLY took in counting ALL revenues, shall we-) I am hoping all Leftists are licking their chops, I really am!

Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1980-2007 - Federal State Local Data

Taxes are a lagging indicator and we have different governments and different taxes in the several States.

In any case, you have not shown that revenue would have been lower than what was obtained, if taxes had been left at the same from prior years. Holding for constant growth, we lost revenue by lowering taxes.

But growth wasn't constant, now was it-) In fact, it caused a massive economic explosion, didn't it!

And of course, you want me to prove a negative........like what would have happened, lol.

That is NOT the point! I am not trying to prove YOUR point of what would have happened, I am proving MY point, of what actually did! And it wasn't revenue fell, now is it-)

And for those of you who believe this is just a Republican idea.

What happened to revenue AFTER the Kennedy tax cuts of 1964?

Hmmmmm, good question, lets check them out, shall we! Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1963-1967 - Federal State Local Data

 

[g5000]

The deficit for Trump's first year:

OH SNAP

 

[g5000]

Not one topic started by the pseudocon hacks about Trump and the GOP running our debt to the biggest debt in the history of the Universe.

Not one.

This is how you know they don't give a flying fuck about debt. This is how you know they are just retards parroting what they are told to parrot.

 

[g5000]

The tards start topics bragging about the stock market being at its highest level ever, giving all credit to Trump.

And yet they don't give Trump credit for the federal debt being at its highest level ever.

The stench of hypocrisy, ladies and gentlemen. The tards REEK of it.

 

[danielpalos]

Liar! Show me where-) Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 - Tax Foundation

Your own link shows it. Though I apologize, I got 1 of the years wrong. I said federal income tax revenue fell in 1981 and 1982, but it was 1982 and 1983.

LOL, I was waiting, I really was, I did it on purpose-)

You see, I like when you guys pounce-)

But you see, the chart I gave you was revenue by source so you would, lol.

Now let us see how much the government ACTUALLY took in counting ALL revenues, shall we-) I am hoping all Leftists are licking their chops, I really am!

Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1980-2007 - Federal State Local Data

Taxes are a lagging indicator and we have different governments and different taxes in the several States.

In any case, you have not shown that revenue would have been lower than what was obtained, if taxes had been left at the same from prior years. Holding for constant growth, we lost revenue by lowering taxes.

But growth wasn't constant, now was it-) In fact, it caused a massive economic explosion, didn't it!

And of course, you want me to prove a negative........like what would have happened, lol.

That is NOT the point! I am not trying to prove YOUR point of what would have happened, I am proving MY point, of what actually did! And it wasn't revenue fell, now is it-)

And for those of you who believe this is just a Republican idea.

What happened to revenue AFTER the Kennedy tax cuts of 1964?

Hmmmmm, good question, lets check them out, shall we! Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1963-1967 - Federal State Local Data

It is about best use of resources. The private sector cannot know what is best for the public, only the private.

Why do we have massive debt, massive deficits, and no Infrastructure plan.

 

[Faun]

Why don't you guys just go away!

You have ALL been asked repeatedly to show where a federal tax cut has cost the government money, and not a ONE of you has been able to.

Until you can, your narrative on that is null and void!

Taxes were cut in 1981 and 1982 and federal income tax revenues declined both of those years. Taxes were cut in 2001, 2002 and 203 and federal income tax revenues declined those years.

Liar! Show me where-) Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 - Tax Foundation

Your own link shows it. Though I apologize, I got 1 of the years wrong. I said federal income tax revenue fell in 1981 and 1982, but it was 1982 and 1983.

LOL, I was waiting, I really was, I did it on purpose-)

You see, I like when you guys pounce-)

But you see, the chart I gave you was revenue by source so you would, lol.

Now let us see how much the government ACTUALLY took in counting ALL revenues, shall we-) I am hoping all Leftists are licking their chops, I really am!

Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1980-2007 - Federal State Local Data

Now if everyone looks, in 2003 Bush moved the tax cuts from 2006. What happened to total revenue.

Also notice, what happened AFTER Clinton cut the tax in 1997?

Show us the loss, show it to us please-)

Bush had already cut taxes in 2001, 2001 and 2003. Federal income tax revenues fell all those years.

You skip past those pesky facts to point to rising revenues starting in 2004 but you falsely attribute that rise to the tax cuts (which already saw 3 years of decline) when it was actually the real estate bubble, which began expanding uncontrollably around 2004, which inflated the economy and increased tax revenues.

 

[Faun]

why are we still running deficits and cutting taxes for the rich and adding to the debt?

Why don't you guys just go away!

You have ALL been asked repeatedly to show where a federal tax cut has cost the government money, and not a ONE of you has been able to.

Until you can, your narrative on that is null and void!

Taxes were cut in 1981 and 1982 and federal income tax revenues declined both of those years. Taxes were cut in 2001, 2002 and 203 and federal income tax revenues declined those years.

Liar! Show me where-) Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 - Tax Foundation

Your own link shows it. Though I apologize, I got 1 of the years wrong. I said federal income tax revenue fell in 1981 and 1982, but it was 1982 and 1983.

LOL, I was waiting, I really was, I did it on purpose-)

You see, I like when you guys pounce-)

But you see, the chart I gave you was revenue by source so you would, lol.

Now let us see how much the government ACTUALLY took in counting ALL revenues, shall we-) I am hoping all Leftists are licking their chops, I really am!

Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1980-2007 - Federal State Local Data

Now you’re lying by changing topics.

Figures.

We were talking about cutting federal income taxes and here you are, shifting to all other taxes as well. Even worse, you’re now even including state and local tax revenue, which is s reflection on state and local tax rates/codes; not on Reagan’s tax cuts.

Happens every time... scratch a conservative— find a liar.

 

[imawhosure]

Liar! Show me where-) Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 - Tax Foundation

Your own link shows it. Though I apologize, I got 1 of the years wrong. I said federal income tax revenue fell in 1981 and 1982, but it was 1982 and 1983.

LOL, I was waiting, I really was, I did it on purpose-)

You see, I like when you guys pounce-)

But you see, the chart I gave you was revenue by source so you would, lol.

Now let us see how much the government ACTUALLY took in counting ALL revenues, shall we-) I am hoping all Leftists are licking their chops, I really am!

Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1980-2007 - Federal State Local Data

Taxes are a lagging indicator and we have different governments and different taxes in the several States.

In any case, you have not shown that revenue would have been lower than what was obtained, if taxes had been left at the same from prior years. Holding for constant growth, we lost revenue by lowering taxes.

But growth wasn't constant, now was it-) In fact, it caused a massive economic explosion, didn't it!

And of course, you want me to prove a negative........like what would have happened, lol.

That is NOT the point! I am not trying to prove YOUR point of what would have happened, I am proving MY point, of what actually did! And it wasn't revenue fell, now is it-)

inducing boom and bust cycles and bailing out the rich, is not very capitalistic.

Then I guess you are suggesting that somehow tax cuts induce boom and bust cycles? Please explain the economic theory behind that bit of economic wisdom. Wouldn't you more insist if thinking, that governmental policy does that. What created the housing crisis? Government interference! It caused a FALSE signal to be sent that more housing was needed because of low interest rates on housing to get more people in them. That was NOT a signal sent by economics, but by government.

Let me ask you something---------> If you and I have 3% down on a house each, why would one of us get it, and the other not if we have everything the same?

REAL ANSWER----------> NEITHER of us should get it, but one of us will IF we were a minority in the past. That is not based on sound economic principles, that is based on government, social, engineering.

Now you have heard all the nonsense I bet, how the richer people caused this by moving up into houses they couldn't afford; and you would partially be correct. But the real question is-----------> what happened to their old house! How did they sell it, and start that vicious cycle of over reach by all? And that is exactly how NEW CONSTRUCTION prices went up so fast........because existing construction could be sold so quickly to anyone with a job making peanuts. Government did this, it DID!

Look back to newspapers and on youtube if you want to teach yourself something. Politicians from BOTH partys were heralding how absolutely wonderful they were because home ownership was so high, all because of their brilliance and policies.

And then, and then, and then, because of those policies, it all came crashing down.......not because of sound economics, but because of their brilliant social engineering, sound economic policies in housing were tossed out the window. You didn't hear either side of the aisle crowing so much anymore, did you. Instead, you seen them pointing the finger at each other, trying to pass the blame......when they BOTH screwed it up.

That is why YOU keeping as much of your money as possible while still funding the necessities of government, is sooooooo important. You can choose much wiser what is best for you than they can, and if you can't afford it by sound economic policies put forth by lending institutions, they won't allow you to buy it, IF you have to borrow money to do it!

 

[danielpalos]

Your own link shows it. Though I apologize, I got 1 of the years wrong. I said federal income tax revenue fell in 1981 and 1982, but it was 1982 and 1983.

LOL, I was waiting, I really was, I did it on purpose-)

You see, I like when you guys pounce-)

But you see, the chart I gave you was revenue by source so you would, lol.

Now let us see how much the government ACTUALLY took in counting ALL revenues, shall we-) I am hoping all Leftists are licking their chops, I really am!

Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1980-2007 - Federal State Local Data

Taxes are a lagging indicator and we have different governments and different taxes in the several States.

In any case, you have not shown that revenue would have been lower than what was obtained, if taxes had been left at the same from prior years. Holding for constant growth, we lost revenue by lowering taxes.

But growth wasn't constant, now was it-) In fact, it caused a massive economic explosion, didn't it!

And of course, you want me to prove a negative........like what would have happened, lol.

That is NOT the point! I am not trying to prove YOUR point of what would have happened, I am proving MY point, of what actually did! And it wasn't revenue fell, now is it-)

inducing boom and bust cycles and bailing out the rich, is not very capitalistic.

Then I guess you are suggesting that somehow tax cuts induce boom and bust cycles? Please explain the economic theory behind that bit of economic wisdom. Wouldn't you more insist if thinking, that governmental policy does that. What created the housing crisis? Government interference! It caused a FALSE signal to be sent that more housing was needed because of low interest rates on housing to get more people in them. That was NOT a signal sent by economics, but by government.

Let me ask you something---------> If you and I have 3% down on a house each, why would one of us get it, and the other not if we have everything the same?

REAL ANSWER----------> NEITHER of us should get it, but one of us will IF we were a minority in the past. That is not based on sound economic principles, that is based on government, social, engineering.

Now you have heard all the nonsense I bet, how the richer people caused this by moving up into houses they couldn't afford; and you would partially be correct. But the real question is-----------> what happened to their old house! How did they sell it, and start that vicious cycle of over reach by all? And that is exactly how NEW CONSTRUCTION prices went up so fast........because existing construction could be sold so quickly to anyone with a job making peanuts. Government did this, it DID!

Look back to newspapers and on youtube if you want to teach yourself something. Politicians from BOTH partys were heralding how absolutely wonderful they were because home ownership was so high, all because of their brilliance and policies.

And then, and then, and then, because of those policies, it all came crashing down.......not because of sound economics, but because of their brilliant social engineering, sound economic policies in housing were tossed out the window. You didn't hear either side of the aisle crowing so much anymore, did you. Instead, you seen them pointing the finger at each other, trying to pass the blame......when they BOTH screwed it up.

That is why YOU keeping as much of your money as possible while still funding the necessities of government, is sooooooo important. You can choose much wiser what is best for you than they can, and if you can't afford it by sound economic policies put forth by lending institutions, they won't allow you to buy it, IF you have to borrow money to do it!

we should be spending on infrastructure via macroeconomics, not on microeconomic stuff.

 

[imawhosure]

Why don't you guys just go away!

You have ALL been asked repeatedly to show where a federal tax cut has cost the government money, and not a ONE of you has been able to.

Until you can, your narrative on that is null and void!

Taxes were cut in 1981 and 1982 and federal income tax revenues declined both of those years. Taxes were cut in 2001, 2002 and 203 and federal income tax revenues declined those years.

Liar! Show me where-) Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 - Tax Foundation

Your own link shows it. Though I apologize, I got 1 of the years wrong. I said federal income tax revenue fell in 1981 and 1982, but it was 1982 and 1983.

LOL, I was waiting, I really was, I did it on purpose-)

You see, I like when you guys pounce-)

But you see, the chart I gave you was revenue by source so you would, lol.

Now let us see how much the government ACTUALLY took in counting ALL revenues, shall we-) I am hoping all Leftists are licking their chops, I really am!

Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1980-2007 - Federal State Local Data

Now you’re lying by changing topics.

Figures.

We were talking about cutting federal income taxes and here you are, shifting to all other taxes as well. Even worse, you’re now even including state and local tax revenue, which is s reflection on state and local tax rates/codes; not on Reagan’s tax cuts.

Happens every time... scratch a conservative— find a liar.

No, you can choose a chart that includes state and local. I chose federal total revenue in billions. Check it out!

All Federal tax cuts have NEVER caused revenue to drop, up to and including the Coolidge tax cuts. So when you insist it causes us to lose revenue, (not you, but Dani) my only response is------->show us where.

And also, you can NOT gauge a tax cut by measuring one aspect of it. You have to take the whole package in total. EXAMPLE--------> If your taxes are RAISED causing a shortfall in your personal budget so your spouse who is not working then gets a job, and your household income rises.........was the tax hike good or bad? Your personal income as a household grew, so that means it is good? I don't know, you tell me!

Point is-------------> no matter how you cut it, receipts to the treasury GREW every time a tax cut was given in modern history.....Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, Bush Jr.

Now, if you want to argue that the method that created that reality is bad because of whatever happened, then listen we (at least I) will. But, to insist we are in error over our assertion of what actually happened is a losing proposition for you, because the government has given us the numbers. We are correct; and unless you want to call our government a bunch of liars, I suggest you change your plan of attack-)

 

[imawhosure]

LOL, I was waiting, I really was, I did it on purpose-)

You see, I like when you guys pounce-)

But you see, the chart I gave you was revenue by source so you would, lol.

Now let us see how much the government ACTUALLY took in counting ALL revenues, shall we-) I am hoping all Leftists are licking their chops, I really am!

Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1980-2007 - Federal State Local Data

Taxes are a lagging indicator and we have different governments and different taxes in the several States.

In any case, you have not shown that revenue would have been lower than what was obtained, if taxes had been left at the same from prior years. Holding for constant growth, we lost revenue by lowering taxes.

But growth wasn't constant, now was it-) In fact, it caused a massive economic explosion, didn't it!

And of course, you want me to prove a negative........like what would have happened, lol.

That is NOT the point! I am not trying to prove YOUR point of what would have happened, I am proving MY point, of what actually did! And it wasn't revenue fell, now is it-)

inducing boom and bust cycles and bailing out the rich, is not very capitalistic.

Then I guess you are suggesting that somehow tax cuts induce boom and bust cycles? Please explain the economic theory behind that bit of economic wisdom. Wouldn't you more insist if thinking, that governmental policy does that. What created the housing crisis? Government interference! It caused a FALSE signal to be sent that more housing was needed because of low interest rates on housing to get more people in them. That was NOT a signal sent by economics, but by government.

Let me ask you something---------> If you and I have 3% down on a house each, why would one of us get it, and the other not if we have everything the same?

REAL ANSWER----------> NEITHER of us should get it, but one of us will IF we were a minority in the past. That is not based on sound economic principles, that is based on government, social, engineering.

Now you have heard all the nonsense I bet, how the richer people caused this by moving up into houses they couldn't afford; and you would partially be correct. But the real question is-----------> what happened to their old house! How did they sell it, and start that vicious cycle of over reach by all? And that is exactly how NEW CONSTRUCTION prices went up so fast........because existing construction could be sold so quickly to anyone with a job making peanuts. Government did this, it DID!

Look back to newspapers and on youtube if you want to teach yourself something. Politicians from BOTH partys were heralding how absolutely wonderful they were because home ownership was so high, all because of their brilliance and policies.

And then, and then, and then, because of those policies, it all came crashing down.......not because of sound economics, but because of their brilliant social engineering, sound economic policies in housing were tossed out the window. You didn't hear either side of the aisle crowing so much anymore, did you. Instead, you seen them pointing the finger at each other, trying to pass the blame......when they BOTH screwed it up.

That is why YOU keeping as much of your money as possible while still funding the necessities of government, is sooooooo important. You can choose much wiser what is best for you than they can, and if you can't afford it by sound economic policies put forth by lending institutions, they won't allow you to buy it, IF you have to borrow money to do it!

we should be spending on infrastructure via macroeconomics, not on microeconomic stuff.

Hey, I am not doubting you, or agreeing with you. I am just showing you what through history has worked. The numbers prove it out. There is no denying it if you check the numbers.

 

[danielpalos]

Taxes were cut in 1981 and 1982 and federal income tax revenues declined both of those years. Taxes were cut in 2001, 2002 and 203 and federal income tax revenues declined those years.

Liar! Show me where-) Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 - Tax Foundation

Your own link shows it. Though I apologize, I got 1 of the years wrong. I said federal income tax revenue fell in 1981 and 1982, but it was 1982 and 1983.

LOL, I was waiting, I really was, I did it on purpose-)

You see, I like when you guys pounce-)

But you see, the chart I gave you was revenue by source so you would, lol.

Now let us see how much the government ACTUALLY took in counting ALL revenues, shall we-) I am hoping all Leftists are licking their chops, I really am!

Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1980-2007 - Federal State Local Data

Now you’re lying by changing topics.

Figures.

We were talking about cutting federal income taxes and here you are, shifting to all other taxes as well. Even worse, you’re now even including state and local tax revenue, which is s reflection on state and local tax rates/codes; not on Reagan’s tax cuts.

Happens every time... scratch a conservative— find a liar.

No, you can choose a chart that includes state and local. I chose federal total revenue in billions. Check it out!

All Federal tax cuts have NEVER caused revenue to drop, up to and including the Coolidge tax cuts. So when you insist it causes us to lose revenue, (not you, but Dani) my only response is------->show us where.

And also, you can NOT gauge a tax cut by measuring one aspect of it. You have to take the whole package in total. EXAMPLE--------> If your taxes are RAISED causing a shortfall in your personal budget so your spouse who is not working then gets a job, and your household income rises.........was the tax hike good or bad? Your personal income as a household grew, so that means it is good? I don't know, you tell me!

Point is-------------> no matter how you cut it, receipts to the treasury GREW every time a tax cut was given in modern history.....Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, Bush Jr.

Now, if you want to argue that the method that created that reality is bad because of whatever happened, then listen we (at least I) will. But, to insist we are in error over our assertion of what actually happened is a losing proposition for you, because the government has given us the numbers. We are correct; and unless you want to call our government a bunch of liars, I suggest you change your plan of attack-)

The Whole Aspect is, we should have massive surpluses not deficits or debt.

 

[danielpalos]

Taxes are a lagging indicator and we have different governments and different taxes in the several States.

In any case, you have not shown that revenue would have been lower than what was obtained, if taxes had been left at the same from prior years. Holding for constant growth, we lost revenue by lowering taxes.

But growth wasn't constant, now was it-) In fact, it caused a massive economic explosion, didn't it!

And of course, you want me to prove a negative........like what would have happened, lol.

That is NOT the point! I am not trying to prove YOUR point of what would have happened, I am proving MY point, of what actually did! And it wasn't revenue fell, now is it-)

inducing boom and bust cycles and bailing out the rich, is not very capitalistic.

Then I guess you are suggesting that somehow tax cuts induce boom and bust cycles? Please explain the economic theory behind that bit of economic wisdom. Wouldn't you more insist if thinking, that governmental policy does that. What created the housing crisis? Government interference! It caused a FALSE signal to be sent that more housing was needed because of low interest rates on housing to get more people in them. That was NOT a signal sent by economics, but by government.

Let me ask you something---------> If you and I have 3% down on a house each, why would one of us get it, and the other not if we have everything the same?

REAL ANSWER----------> NEITHER of us should get it, but one of us will IF we were a minority in the past. That is not based on sound economic principles, that is based on government, social, engineering.

Now you have heard all the nonsense I bet, how the richer people caused this by moving up into houses they couldn't afford; and you would partially be correct. But the real question is-----------> what happened to their old house! How did they sell it, and start that vicious cycle of over reach by all? And that is exactly how NEW CONSTRUCTION prices went up so fast........because existing construction could be sold so quickly to anyone with a job making peanuts. Government did this, it DID!

Look back to newspapers and on youtube if you want to teach yourself something. Politicians from BOTH partys were heralding how absolutely wonderful they were because home ownership was so high, all because of their brilliance and policies.

And then, and then, and then, because of those policies, it all came crashing down.......not because of sound economics, but because of their brilliant social engineering, sound economic policies in housing were tossed out the window. You didn't hear either side of the aisle crowing so much anymore, did you. Instead, you seen them pointing the finger at each other, trying to pass the blame......when they BOTH screwed it up.

That is why YOU keeping as much of your money as possible while still funding the necessities of government, is sooooooo important. You can choose much wiser what is best for you than they can, and if you can't afford it by sound economic policies put forth by lending institutions, they won't allow you to buy it, IF you have to borrow money to do it!

we should be spending on infrastructure via macroeconomics, not on microeconomic stuff.

Hey, I am not doubting you, or agreeing with you. I am just showing you what through history has worked. The numbers prove it out. There is no denying it if you check the numbers.

spend and finance works; but, why blame the poor when the rich get their bailouts, as usual.

 

[imawhosure]

But growth wasn't constant, now was it-) In fact, it caused a massive economic explosion, didn't it!

And of course, you want me to prove a negative........like what would have happened, lol.

That is NOT the point! I am not trying to prove YOUR point of what would have happened, I am proving MY point, of what actually did! And it wasn't revenue fell, now is it-)

inducing boom and bust cycles and bailing out the rich, is not very capitalistic.

Then I guess you are suggesting that somehow tax cuts induce boom and bust cycles? Please explain the economic theory behind that bit of economic wisdom. Wouldn't you more insist if thinking, that governmental policy does that. What created the housing crisis? Government interference! It caused a FALSE signal to be sent that more housing was needed because of low interest rates on housing to get more people in them. That was NOT a signal sent by economics, but by government.

Let me ask you something---------> If you and I have 3% down on a house each, why would one of us get it, and the other not if we have everything the same?

REAL ANSWER----------> NEITHER of us should get it, but one of us will IF we were a minority in the past. That is not based on sound economic principles, that is based on government, social, engineering.

Now you have heard all the nonsense I bet, how the richer people caused this by moving up into houses they couldn't afford; and you would partially be correct. But the real question is-----------> what happened to their old house! How did they sell it, and start that vicious cycle of over reach by all? And that is exactly how NEW CONSTRUCTION prices went up so fast........because existing construction could be sold so quickly to anyone with a job making peanuts. Government did this, it DID!

Look back to newspapers and on youtube if you want to teach yourself something. Politicians from BOTH partys were heralding how absolutely wonderful they were because home ownership was so high, all because of their brilliance and policies.

And then, and then, and then, because of those policies, it all came crashing down.......not because of sound economics, but because of their brilliant social engineering, sound economic policies in housing were tossed out the window. You didn't hear either side of the aisle crowing so much anymore, did you. Instead, you seen them pointing the finger at each other, trying to pass the blame......when they BOTH screwed it up.

That is why YOU keeping as much of your money as possible while still funding the necessities of government, is sooooooo important. You can choose much wiser what is best for you than they can, and if you can't afford it by sound economic policies put forth by lending institutions, they won't allow you to buy it, IF you have to borrow money to do it!

we should be spending on infrastructure via macroeconomics, not on microeconomic stuff.

Hey, I am not doubting you, or agreeing with you. I am just showing you what through history has worked. The numbers prove it out. There is no denying it if you check the numbers.

spend and finance works; but, why blame the poor when the rich get their bailouts, as usual.

Wait a second here, lol. Who would you expect to get the most in cuts, those that pay 90% of the taxes, or those that pay 0? It is called a............wait for it.......tax CUT, not a tax gift-)

 

[Faun]

Taxes were cut in 1981 and 1982 and federal income tax revenues declined both of those years. Taxes were cut in 2001, 2002 and 203 and federal income tax revenues declined those years.

Liar! Show me where-) Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 - Tax Foundation

Your own link shows it. Though I apologize, I got 1 of the years wrong. I said federal income tax revenue fell in 1981 and 1982, but it was 1982 and 1983.

LOL, I was waiting, I really was, I did it on purpose-)

You see, I like when you guys pounce-)

But you see, the chart I gave you was revenue by source so you would, lol.

Now let us see how much the government ACTUALLY took in counting ALL revenues, shall we-) I am hoping all Leftists are licking their chops, I really am!

Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1980-2007 - Federal State Local Data

Now you’re lying by changing topics.

Figures.

We were talking about cutting federal income taxes and here you are, shifting to all other taxes as well. Even worse, you’re now even including state and local tax revenue, which is s reflection on state and local tax rates/codes; not on Reagan’s tax cuts.

Happens every time... scratch a conservative— find a liar.

No, you can choose a chart that includes state and local. I chose federal total revenue in billions. Check it out!

All Federal tax cuts have NEVER caused revenue to drop, up to and including the Coolidge tax cuts. So when you insist it causes us to lose revenue, (not you, but Dani) my only response is------->show us where.

And also, you can NOT gauge a tax cut by measuring one aspect of it. You have to take the whole package in total. EXAMPLE--------> If your taxes are RAISED causing a shortfall in your personal budget so your spouse who is not working then gets a job, and your household income rises.........was the tax hike good or bad? Your personal income as a household grew, so that means it is good? I don't know, you tell me!

Point is-------------> no matter how you cut it, receipts to the treasury GREW every time a tax cut was given in modern history.....Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, Bush Jr.

Now, if you want to argue that the method that created that reality is bad because of whatever happened, then listen we (at least I) will. But, to insist we are in error over our assertion of what actually happened is a losing proposition for you, because the government has given us the numbers. We are correct; and unless you want to call our government a bunch of liars, I suggest you change your plan of attack-)

No, you did not select federal, lying conservative. You selected all taxes (not just income tax) and for federal, local and state.

It even reads that on the link you gave, ya conservative moron...

Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1980-2007 - Federal State Local Data​

We’re talking about federal income tax cuts (personal and corporate) and after being shown federal income tax revenues fell in 1982, 1983, 2001, 2002 and 2003, you had to switch to all taxes for all jurisdictions to show revenues increased during those years.

You’re actually leaning on tax revenues that had absolutely nothing to do with Reagan’s or Bush’s tax cuts to show an increase in revenue.

Scratch a conservative and find a liar.

You should quit while you’re behind.