Restaurant die-off is first course of California’s $15 minimum wage

[Papageorgio]

Restaurant die-off is first course of California’s $15 minimum wage

So, ummm...90% of restaurants fail in their first year. It is one of the hardest businesses to break into. But demand for restaurants will always remain high. It's less about the wage, and more about the quality of food.

No it isn't. Some restaurants have great food and still fail. I know several that failed and great places to eat. Much more to running a restaurant than that.

 

[The Derp]

No it isn't. Some restaurants have great food and still fail. I know several that failed and great places to eat. Much more to running a restaurant than that.

But that's what it comes down to, though...if you make food no one likes, no one will go to your restaurant. Restaurants fail all the time, and not because of the wages of the kitchen staff.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Falling behind while still doing better.

Better, how? You think going into debt is better than not? Weird that you would be OK with individuals increasing their debt-load, but not the government:

And debt was the only thing keeping Bush's economy afloat because his tax policies sure didn't!

He was a yutz.
And was justly rewarded for raising taxes.

The Conservative motivation behind opposing tax increases finds its genesis in Grover Norquist's stupid pledge that he wrote when he was 12. Talk about arrested development!

Better, how?

When I get to keep more of my income, I'm better off.

You think going into debt is better than not?

That would depend on what the debt was for.

Weird that you would be OK with individuals increasing their debt-load,

Too much freedom, eh?
My debt load is very low.
Of course if the idiot Dems in Illinois manage to hike my taxes, I'll be worse off.

but not the government:

Yeah, Obama really blew up the debt. $9.3 trillion. That's a lot!!

 

[The Derp]

When I get to keep more of my income, I'm better off.

But you don't. Instead, you go into debt. That's what the facts show.

That would depend on what the debt was for.

Well that's a stunning reversal from the previous Conservative position of debt = bad. So what you're now doing is saying you have subjective reasoning as to why debt is OK in the cases you deem it so. Talk about inconsistency! So for what did people go into debt that caused HH debt-as-a-%-of-GDP to more than double in 37 years? Health care and education. So that's OK because...?

Weird that you would be OK with individuals increasing their debt-load,
Too much freedom, eh?

But we are told by Conservatives all the time that debt = prison. That it's pretty much the worst thing anyone can ever do to anything. So now, you're doing quite an about-face and trying to have it both ways; tax cuts that produce record deficits and debt are OK because you say so. Beyond that, there's no rationale. Just more of that flip-flopping we've grown accustiomed to from those on the right. How does debt = freedom? Not sure on that one.

My debt load is very low.
Of course if the idiot Dems in Illinois manage to hike my taxes, I'll be worse off.

Maybe.

but not the government:
Yeah, Obama really blew up the debt. $9.3 trillion. That's a lot!!

Conservatism is an expensive mess to clean up.

 

[The Derp]

When I get to keep more of my income, I'm better off.

So this is what Conservative fiscal arguments come down to now...emotion. The argument this guy is making is purely an emotional one. Why? Because there's no fiscal argument for tax cuts, there's no economic argument for tax cuts, there's no academic argument for tax cuts. There is only an emotional one -and the emotions aren't even that legitimate either! When you cut taxes, you cut tax revenue which then forces the State to increase fees and such to cover the decline in revenues. It's what the Kansas State Board of Regents did specifically because of the tax cuts pushed by every supply-sider/trickle-downer/blah blah whatever. They said, quite plainly "In addition to partially making up for the loss in state funding (in prior years)"

Also just last year:

The statewide push for tuition increases was magnified after Gov. Sam Brownback announced a $97 million cut to the overall state budget in May, which included a $30.7 million reduction in overall higher education funding and a 5.1 percent reduction, or a loss of $10.7 million, in funding allocated to the University.​

Keeping more of your income? Not so.

 

[Papageorgio]

No it isn't. Some restaurants have great food and still fail. I know several that failed and great places to eat. Much more to running a restaurant than that.

But that's what it comes down to, though...if you make food no one likes, no one will go to your restaurant. Restaurants fail all the time, and not because of the wages of the kitchen staff.

No it isn't. It is the fifth reason restaurants fail. Lots of other reasons.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When I get to keep more of my income, I'm better off.

But you don't. Instead, you go into debt. That's what the facts show.

That would depend on what the debt was for.

Well that's a stunning reversal from the previous Conservative position of debt = bad. So what you're now doing is saying you have subjective reasoning as to why debt is OK in the cases you deem it so. Talk about inconsistency! So for what did people go into debt that caused HH debt-as-a-%-of-GDP to more than double in 37 years? Health care and education. So that's OK because...?

Weird that you would be OK with individuals increasing their debt-load,
Too much freedom, eh?

But we are told by Conservatives all the time that debt = prison. That it's pretty much the worst thing anyone can ever do to anything. So now, you're doing quite an about-face and trying to have it both ways; tax cuts that produce record deficits and debt are OK because you say so. Beyond that, there's no rationale. Just more of that flip-flopping we've grown accustiomed to from those on the right. How does debt = freedom? Not sure on that one.

My debt load is very low.
Of course if the idiot Dems in Illinois manage to hike my taxes, I'll be worse off.

Maybe.

but not the government:
Yeah, Obama really blew up the debt. $9.3 trillion. That's a lot!!

Conservatism is an expensive mess to clean up.

But you don't.

But I do. And if taxes go up in Illinois, I'll keep less of my income and be worse off.

Well that's a stunning reversal from the previous Conservative position of debt = bad.

If you want to borrow and waste the money, you're free to do so.
This is America, I can point out your stupidity while you do it.

So what you're now doing is saying you have subjective reasoning as to why debt is OK in the cases you deem it so.

And you have subjective reasoning as to why debt is bad in the cases you deem it so.

How does debt = freedom?

You want to pass a law to disallow debt? Go for it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When I get to keep more of my income, I'm better off.

So this is what Conservative fiscal arguments come down to now...emotion. The argument this guy is making is purely an emotional one. Why? Because there's no fiscal argument for tax cuts, there's no economic argument for tax cuts, there's no academic argument for tax cuts. There is only an emotional one -and the emotions aren't even that legitimate either! When you cut taxes, you cut tax revenue which then forces the State to increase fees and such to cover the decline in revenues. It's what the Kansas State Board of Regents did specifically because of the tax cuts pushed by every supply-sider/trickle-downer/blah blah whatever. They said, quite plainly "In addition to partially making up for the loss in state funding (in prior years)"

Also just last year:

The statewide push for tuition increases was magnified after Gov. Sam Brownback announced a $97 million cut to the overall state budget in May, which included a $30.7 million reduction in overall higher education funding and a 5.1 percent reduction, or a loss of $10.7 million, in funding allocated to the University.​

Keeping more of your income? Not so.

So this is what Conservative fiscal arguments come down to now...emotion.

Another $1000 in my bank account makes me better off.

Because there's no fiscal argument for tax cuts, there's no economic argument for tax cuts, there's no academic argument for tax cuts.

Tax cuts help the economy grow, help employment grow.

When you cut taxes, you cut tax revenue

Sometimes.

which then forces the State to increase fees and such to cover the decline in revenues.

I think the State should cut spending.

 

[The Derp]

But I do. And if taxes go up in Illinois, I'll keep less of my income and be worse off.

Or if you get a tax cut, you go into debt. So....

Well that's a stunning reversal from the previous Conservative position of debt = bad.
If you want to borrow and waste the money, you're free to do so.
This is America, I can point out your stupidity while you do it.

So you principles don't really matter a whole lot, then? I'm just trying to figure out why you make such a big deal about federal debt, yet encourage individual debt? You see how that's cognitive dissonance, right? If anything, you should be making a big deal about individual debt, since that directly impacts consumers. Federal debt doesn't.

So what you're now doing is saying you have subjective reasoning as to why debt is OK in the cases you deem it so.
And you have subjective reasoning as to why debt is bad in the cases you deem it so.

When did I ever say debt was bad? Never. Not once. I said you guys say debt is bad, except when it's run up by individuals, in which case it's good, except when it's not, but only if you deem it appropriate through your subjective lens, which doesn't matter because you've now taken a position of ambivalence, which is weird because we've had discussions (you and I) about federal debt and deficits before, and back then, debt meant a great deal. How many posts do you go before saying something like Obama's added X to the debt? But you just said you don't care. And then you jump from individuals to federal debt, and then back again. Why do I get the feeling this is by design?

How does debt = freedom?
You want to pass a law to disallow debt? Go for it.

You're the one who said tax cuts produce "freedumb" while simultaneously arguing the perils of federal debt. So I think you need to re-examine what it is you actually think.

 

[The Derp]

Another $1000 in my bank account makes me better off.

Not if your debt is nearly doubling at the same time, which is what the data shows happened:

Not if you have to take out a Mortgage Equity Withdrawal, which is what the data shows happened:

Tax cuts help the economy grow, help employment grow.

No, they don't. KS cut taxes, and then saw its GDP growth rate drop to below the national average. It also saw its job growth rate drop to below the national average. So in what world is what you're saying true? We just saw the experiment play out (and fail) in Kansas. So why are you still talking as if it never happened?

When you cut taxes, you cut tax revenue
Sometimes.

Always. Tax cuts do not, have not, and will never pay for themselves. This lie is a zombie lie that needs to be put down, Rick Grimes-style.

which then forces the State to increase fees and such to cover the decline in revenues.
I think the State should cut spending.

When the state cuts spending, that results in higher costs for citizens. The clearest example is the KS State Board of Regents raising tuition costs because of spending cuts by Brownback. Spending cuts that were only necessary because his tax cuts failed to deliver on all of the promises made of them, including producing all this imaginary revenue that would pay for themselves.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But I do. And if taxes go up in Illinois, I'll keep less of my income and be worse off.

Or if you get a tax cut, you go into debt. So....

Well that's a stunning reversal from the previous Conservative position of debt = bad.
If you want to borrow and waste the money, you're free to do so.
This is America, I can point out your stupidity while you do it.

So you principles don't really matter a whole lot, then? I'm just trying to figure out why you make such a big deal about federal debt, yet encourage individual debt? You see how that's cognitive dissonance, right? If anything, you should be making a big deal about individual debt, since that directly impacts consumers. Federal debt doesn't.

So what you're now doing is saying you have subjective reasoning as to why debt is OK in the cases you deem it so.
And you have subjective reasoning as to why debt is bad in the cases you deem it so.

When did I ever say debt was bad? Never. Not once. I said you guys say debt is bad, except when it's run up by individuals, in which case it's good, except when it's not, but only if you deem it appropriate through your subjective lens, which doesn't matter because you've now taken a position of ambivalence, which is weird because we've had discussions (you and I) about federal debt and deficits before, and back then, debt meant a great deal. How many posts do you go before saying something like Obama's added X to the debt? But you just said you don't care. And then you jump from individuals to federal debt, and then back again.

How does debt = freedom?
You want to pass a law to disallow debt? Go for it.

You're the one who said tax cuts produce "freedumb" while simultaneously arguing the perils of federal debt. So I think you need to re-examine what it is you actually think.

Or if you get a tax cut, you go into debt.

Tax cuts make me less likely to go into debt.

I'm just trying to figure out why you make such a big deal about federal debt, yet encourage individual debt?

Where did I encourage individual debt? Link?

You're the one who said tax cuts produce "freedumb"

I did? Link?

So I think you need to re-examine what it is you actually think.

Right after you get your eyes examined. You're seeing things that aren't on the screen.

 

[The Derp]

Tax cuts make me less likely to go into debt.

No, they make you more likely to go into debt because the State has to raise fees for everything else, like tuition and/or health care, which then becomes individual debt because the individual has to take out loans or mortgage equity withdrawals to pay for it. It is precisely what happened during Bush the Dumber:

I'm just trying to figure out why you make such a big deal about federal debt, yet encourage individual debt?
Where did I encourage individual debt? Link?

Tax cuts produce debt, you said that it was "freedumb". Ergo, debt = freedumb.

So I think you need to re-examine what it is you actually think.
Right after you get your eyes examined. You're seeing things that aren't on the screen.

No, you seem to suffer from Conservative amnesia.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Another $1000 in my bank account makes me better off.

Not if your debt is nearly doubling at the same time, which is what the data shows happened:

Not if you have to take out a Mortgage Equity Withdrawal, which is what the data shows happened:

Tax cuts help the economy grow, help employment grow.

No, they don't. KS cut taxes, and then saw its GDP growth rate drop to below the national average. It also saw its job growth rate drop to below the national average. So in what world is what you're saying true? We just saw the experiment play out (and fail) in Kansas. So why are you still talking as if it never happened?

When you cut taxes, you cut tax revenue
Sometimes.

Always. Tax cuts do not, have not, and will never pay for themselves. This lie is a zombie lie that needs to be put down, Rick Grimes-style.

which then forces the State to increase fees and such to cover the decline in revenues.
I think the State should cut spending.

When the state cuts spending, that results in higher costs for citizens. The clearest example is the KS State Board of Regents raising tuition costs because of spending cuts by Brownback. Spending cuts that were only necessary because his tax cuts failed to deliver on all of the promises made of them, including producing all this imaginary revenue that would pay for themselves.

Not if your debt is nearly doubling at the same time

My debt went down after every tax cut.

Not if you have to take out a Mortgage Equity Withdrawal,

Have to?

Tax cuts help the economy grow, help employment grow.

No, they don't.

Obama disagrees.

KS cut taxes, and then saw its GDP growth rate drop to below the national average.

IL hiked taxes in 2011. Our growth rate must have been awesome, eh?
Our debt and pension issues must have improved, right?
And with a 67% rate hike on individuals, individual debt must have improved as well.

Let me know if you find any evidence of improvements in Illinois after the hike. Thanks!

So in what world is what you're saying true?

LBJ and Reagan passed large tax cuts, growth increased.
Bush passed a tax cut, growth increased.

When the state cuts spending, that results in higher costs for citizens.

I could cut government employment in Illinois by 30% and it wouldn't cost the average citizen a dime.

Always. Tax cuts do not, have not, and will never pay for themselves.

Clinton's cap gains tax cut "paid for itself".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Tax cuts make me less likely to go into debt.

No, they make you more likely to go into debt because the State has to raise fees for everything else, like tuition and/or health care, which then becomes individual debt because the individual has to take out loans or mortgage equity withdrawals to pay for it. It is precisely what happened during Bush the Dumber:

I'm just trying to figure out why you make such a big deal about federal debt, yet encourage individual debt?
Where did I encourage individual debt? Link?

Tax cuts produce debt, you said that it was "freedumb". Ergo, debt = freedumb.

So I think you need to re-examine what it is you actually think.
Right after you get your eyes examined. You're seeing things that aren't on the screen.

No, you seem to suffer from Conservative amnesia.

No, they make you more likely to go into debt because the State has to raise fees for everything else, like tuition and/or health care,

If they cut taxes by $100, are they raising fees by $100? More? Less?

Tax cuts produce debt,

So you say. Even though they reduce my debt. Now where did I encourage individual debt? Post the link.

No, you seem to suffer from Conservative amnesia

Refresh my memory. Show me where I said as you claimed. Unless you lied?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No it isn't. Some restaurants have great food and still fail. I know several that failed and great places to eat. Much more to running a restaurant than that.

But that's what it comes down to, though...if you make food no one likes, no one will go to your restaurant. Restaurants fail all the time, and not because of the wages of the kitchen staff.

most restaurants make a tiny tiny profit if they are profitable at all because it is very very competitive and there is no way to underprice the competition. A tiny uptick in wages can bankrupt half of them and encourage the other half to use robots.

 

[Markle]

Tax cuts make me less likely to go into debt.

No, they make you more likely to go into debt because the State has to raise fees for everything else, like tuition and/or health care, which then becomes individual debt because the individual has to take out loans or mortgage equity withdrawals to pay for it. It is precisely what happened during Bush the Dumber:

I'm just trying to figure out why you make such a big deal about federal debt, yet encourage individual debt?
Where did I encourage individual debt? Link?

Tax cuts produce debt, you said that it was "freedumb". Ergo, debt = freedumb.

So I think you need to re-examine what it is you actually think.
Right after you get your eyes examined. You're seeing things that aren't on the screen.

No, you seem to suffer from Conservative amnesia.

What purpose do you believe you serve in posting over TEN-YEAR-OLD information? Petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama hadn't even been elected by the last year in your desperate whatever.

 

[The Derp]

What purpose do you believe you serve in posting over TEN-YEAR-OLD information?

Umm,, the age of the information has no bearing on what the information shows. And the information shows that the only thing keeping Bush's economy afloat was debt.

What do you think this chart means?

 

[The Derp]

My debt went down after every tax cut.

OK, but you realize this isn't about just you, right? That you do not exist in a vacuum, and just because something didn't affect you personally, doesn't mean it didn't affect a whole lot more people to a greater degree. When I say that people go into debt after a tax cut, that is supported by the increased household debt that spikes every time taxes are cut. We see here that household debt grew about 40% from the time Bush cut taxes in 2001 to the collapse in 200 going from about 90% of GDP up to above 130% by 2007:

Have to?Tax cuts help the economy grow, help employment grow.

Yes, have to. Which is what we saw during Bush the Dumber. An no, they do not help the economy grow, clearly:

No, they don't.Obama disagrees.

Obama's not President. And Obama raised taxes on the wealthy several times.

IL hiked taxes in 2011. Our growth rate must have been awesome, eh?

It was better than Kansas, which did the opposite.

Our debt and pension issues must have improved, right?

Debt and pension issues have nothing to do with economic growth. Those are fiscal issues, not economic ones. So far, you have been completely unable to make a connection between poor economic growth, and high debt. You will never be able to because the last time Conservatives tried to make that argument, they were exposed as lying frauds. It was a whole thing. Rogoff/Reinhart's "Growth in the Time of Debt". That paper, which served as the basis for austerity arguments, was rife with "spreadsheet errors" (from Harvard economists? Yeah, right), deliberate data omissions, and wasn't peer reviewed (with good reason). So if you guys were bullshitting about debt's affect on the economy in 2010, why wouldn't you be bullshitting about that same topic today?

And with a 67% rate hike on individuals, individual debt must have improved as well.

LOL! So you are trying to make it sound like the tax rate is 67%. That's not true, is it? What was the tax rate before the hike and what was the tax rate after the hike. Because a 67% increase can mean the marginal rate going from 3% to 5%. That is a 67% increase, is it not? Also, IL's household debt figures have declined following the tax hike:

Let me know if you find any evidence of improvements in Illinois after the hike. Thanks!

See above. You're welcome.

So in what world is what you're saying true?
LBJ and Reagan passed large tax cuts, growth increased.
Bush passed a tax cut, growth increased.

LBJ and Reagan also increased spending dramatically. For LBJ, he increased government spending by nearly 50% from 1964-1968. Reagan did the same thing, increasing government spending 69% from 1981-1989. Bush didn't see growth after the tax cuts. The only growth was due to the housing bubble and people using their homes as ATMs, which you would argue they wouldn't have to do because they got more money back on the tax cut. Well if that's the case, how come MEW's made up the bulk of GDP growth during Bush? These are facts, not up for dispute. Facts that seem to undercut your argument completely.

When the state cuts spending, that results in higher costs for citizens.
I could cut government employment in Illinois by 30% and it wouldn't cost the average citizen a dime.

Now you're just spinning your wheels. This answer of yours does nothing to address what I was saying. When the state cuts spending, citizens bear higher costs because of it. This happened in Kansas, when the KS State Board of Regents had to increase tuition in order to make up for the funding gap from the state. So the state cut taxes, which cut tax revenue, which unbalanced the budget, which led to spending cuts, which led to less money for KS colleges and universities, which forced them to raise tuition, which forced students to borrow more, which puts them in debt, which delays them starting a family and buying a home. That's how tax cuts cost us. And where's the growth? Nowhere to be found.

Always. Tax cuts do not, have not, and will never pay for themselves.
Clinton's cap gains tax cut "paid for itself".

No it didn't! The Capital Gains Tax Cut of 1997 is the reason the dotcom bubble burst by 2000.

 

[The Derp]

If they cut taxes by $100, are they raising fees by $100? More? Less?

It's not a zero-sum game. They're raising it more. That's what happened in KS. We have a real-life example of this shit in practice.

Tax cuts produce debt,
So you say. Even though they reduce my debt. Now where did I encourage individual debt? Post the link.

So you say they reduce your debt (taking your word for it seems to be your only approach in this debate, huh?), but why should I fucking believe you? It's easy to just make up shit about yourself on a message board to lend your argument credibility it doesn't otherwise have. That's why you invoke personal anecdotes that aren't verifiable. You know that there's no actual facts or data to support your argument, so your argument rests on something you cannot even prove! This always happens with you guys. We reach a point in the debate where your academic arguments are exhausted, yet the debate continues. So to fill that void in your argument, you populate it with invented personal circumstances that just so happen to validate your argument. You can't do that on facts we can all see, so you invent things to bridge that gap. Tsk tsk. That's lazy and sloppy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

My debt went down after every tax cut.

OK, but you realize this isn't about just you, right? That you do not exist in a vacuum, and just because something didn't affect you personally, doesn't mean it didn't affect a whole lot more people to a greater degree. When I say that people go into debt after a tax cut, that is supported by the increased household debt that spikes every time taxes are cut. We see here that household debt grew about 40% from the time Bush cut taxes in 2001 to the collapse in 200 going from about 90% of GDP up to above 130% by 2007:

Have to?Tax cuts help the economy grow, help employment grow.

Yes, have to. Which is what we saw during Bush the Dumber. An no, they do not help the economy grow, clearly:

No, they don't.Obama disagrees.

Obama's not President. And Obama raised taxes on the wealthy several times.

IL hiked taxes in 2011. Our growth rate must have been awesome, eh?

It was better than Kansas, which did the opposite.

Our debt and pension issues must have improved, right?

Debt and pension issues have nothing to do with economic growth. Those are fiscal issues, not economic ones. So far, you have been completely unable to make a connection between poor economic growth, and high debt. You will never be able to because the last time Conservatives tried to make that argument, they were exposed as lying frauds. It was a whole thing. Rogoff/Reinhart's "Growth in the Time of Debt". That paper, which served as the basis for austerity arguments, was rife with "spreadsheet errors" (from Harvard economists? Yeah, right), deliberate data omissions, and wasn't peer reviewed (with good reason). So if you guys were bullshitting about debt's affect on the economy in 2010, why wouldn't you be bullshitting about that same topic today?

And with a 67% rate hike on individuals, individual debt must have improved as well.

LOL! So you are trying to make it sound like the tax rate is 67%. That's not true, is it? What was the tax rate before the hike and what was the tax rate after the hike. Because a 67% increase can mean the marginal rate going from 3% to 5%. That is a 67% increase, is it not? Also, IL's household debt figures have declined following the tax hike:

Let me know if you find any evidence of improvements in Illinois after the hike. Thanks!

See above. You're welcome.

So in what world is what you're saying true?
LBJ and Reagan passed large tax cuts, growth increased.
Bush passed a tax cut, growth increased.

LBJ and Reagan also increased spending dramatically. For LBJ, he increased government spending by nearly 50% from 1964-1968. Reagan did the same thing, increasing government spending 69% from 1981-1989. Bush didn't see growth after the tax cuts. The only growth was due to the housing bubble and people using their homes as ATMs, which you would argue they wouldn't have to do because they got more money back on the tax cut. Well if that's the case, how come MEW's made up the bulk of GDP growth during Bush? These are facts, not up for dispute. Facts that seem to undercut your argument completely.

When the state cuts spending, that results in higher costs for citizens.
I could cut government employment in Illinois by 30% and it wouldn't cost the average citizen a dime.

Now you're just spinning your wheels. This answer of yours does nothing to address what I was saying. When the state cuts spending, citizens bear higher costs because of it. This happened in Kansas, when the KS State Board of Regents had to increase tuition in order to make up for the funding gap from the state. So the state cut taxes, which cut tax revenue, which unbalanced the budget, which led to spending cuts, which led to less money for KS colleges and universities, which forced them to raise tuition, which forced students to borrow more, which puts them in debt, which delays them starting a family and buying a home. That's how tax cuts cost us. And where's the growth? Nowhere to be found.

Always. Tax cuts do not, have not, and will never pay for themselves.
Clinton's cap gains tax cut "paid for itself".

No it didn't! The Capital Gains Tax Cut of 1997 is the reason the dotcom bubble burst by 2000.

OK, but you realize this isn't about just you, right?

Your claim was everyone's debt increases when taxes are cut. So you were wrong.

That you do not exist in a vacuum, and just because something didn't affect you personally,

The tax cuts did affect me personally. They put more money in my pocket.

When I say that people go into debt after a tax cut, that is supported by the increased household debt that spikes every time taxes are cut.

You still haven't shown that anyone increased their debt because their taxes were cut.

Yes, have to.

No one had to withdraw equity from their home.

An no, they do not help the economy grow, clearly:

The economy grows every time they're cut. Clearly.

Obama's not President.

When he was President he cut taxes and said it would grow the economy. Grow jobs. Why would he lie?

It was better than Kansas

Prove it.

Debt and pension issues have nothing to do with economic growth.

Illinois raised taxes to fix those issues. Did they get fixed?

And with a 67% rate hike

Because a 67% increase can mean the marginal rate going from 3% to 5%.

That's what they did. If they hiked it 100%, it would have gone from 3% to 6%. They hiked 67%.

Also, IL's household debt figures have declined following the tax hike:

You think debt figures declined because people had less after tax income, because taxes rose? LOL!
Let's follow your previous "logic" further.
After the Illinois tax hike, which other taxes, fees or tuition cuts took place to allow Illinoisans to cut their debt?
Or does your fee claim only work in one direction?

Bush didn't see growth after the tax cuts.

LOL!

Clinton's cap gains tax cut "paid for itself".

No it didn't!

In 1996, before the cap gains rate was cut, the government took in $66.4 billion in cap gains taxes.
In 1997, the long-term rate was cut to 20%.
Capital gains receipts in:
1997-$79.3 billion
1998-$86.1 billion
1999-$111.8 billion
2000-$127.3 billion
Federal Capital Gains Tax Collections, 1954-2009 - Tax Foundation

How can this be? If you cut tax rates, the government gets less money, always.........DURR