Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

[JonKoch]

I don't consider anything Conservatives say to be truthful..

Kennedy and his economists were not a conservative!!! and most of the others were not either!!

You mean those DEMAND SIDE tax cuts?

JFK, the demand-side tax cutter.

 

[JonKoch]

Bull shit. Looks like you never took a statistics class or failed one.

Would that be a statistics class where you're taught cutting tax revenue will somehow increase tax revenue?

obviously the more you tax the more you kill the economy and less revenue you collect

LMAOROG, Gawd you are as dumb as a rock

Study: Optimal Top Tax Rate For The Rich Is 70 Percent

According research by Nobel Prize-winning economist Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez, the optimal top income tax rate for wealthy earners is about 70 percent, far below today’s top rate of 35 percent. Diamond and Saez argue that the top tax rate should be set at the point where it maximizes revenue, which can then be used to aid lower-income Americans. They also note that “even increasing the average federal income tax rate of the top percentile to 43.5 percent, which would be sufficient to raise revenue by 3 percentage points of GDP, would still leave the after-tax income share of the top percentile more than twice as high as in 1970.”
Study: Optimal Top Tax Rate For The Rich Is 70 Percent

YOU DO KNOW THERE IS A LEFT AND RIGHT OF LAFFER'S CURVE RIGHT? RONNIE REAGAN HAD A TOP RATE OF 50% WHEN YOU KLOWNS CLAIM THE ECONOMY WAS BOOMING!!!

 

[JonKoch]

You "feel" that tax cuts create growth,.

actually there must have been 20 economists in the article who "feel" that way after getting Ph.D's!! Why not reread for comprehension???

CBO: Bush Tax Cuts Responsible For Almost A Third Of Deficit In Last 10 Years (2001-2010)
Changes in CBO's Baseline Projections Since January 2001


Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

 

[Chuz Life]

When, if ever. . . will the leftardz ever learn that a Tax on the "rich" IS a tax on the poor?!?

REALLY? LMAOROG

We can't dare touch those babies with the obligation to fund OUR Gov't or they'll put their money under their pillows???

Idiot.

Let's go through this slowly with some q&a.

1. Where do rich people and their businesses get their money from?

Generally theft

Bubs, care to point to ANYTIME taxing the rich hurt growth???? The economy?

You keep s*cking off those "job creators" Bubs

Okay, your answer is idiotic as hell.... But let's run with it. Who does the rich and their big businesses "steal" from?

 

[danielpalos]

You "feel" that tax cuts create growth,.

actually there must have been 20 economists in the article who "feel" that way after getting Ph.D's!! Why not reread for comprehension???

CBO: Bush Tax Cuts Responsible For Almost A Third Of Deficit In Last 10 Years (2001-2010)
Changes in CBO's Baseline Projections Since January 2001


Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Just the rich making rules with their gold?

In 2007, the top 20% wealthiest possessed 80% of all financial assets.[18] In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 35% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 51%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. In 2011, financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 43%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[19] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 35% to 37%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 88%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the top 1% and the bottom 99%.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

The right wing prefers to, "hate on the poor" for our "financial" problems.

 

[danielpalos]

When, if ever. . . will the leftardz ever learn that a Tax on the "rich" IS a tax on the poor?!?

REALLY? LMAOROG

We can't dare touch those babies with the obligation to fund OUR Gov't or they'll put their money under their pillows???

Idiot.

Let's go through this slowly with some q&a.

1. Where do rich people and their businesses get their money from?

Generally theft

Bubs, care to point to ANYTIME taxing the rich hurt growth???? The economy?

You keep s*cking off those "job creators" Bubs

Okay, your answer is idiotic as hell.... But let's run with it. Who does the rich and their big businesses "steal" from?

Why do You think the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, on an almost, "institutional" basis.

 

[Spare_change]

Prove it.

Simply fund unemployment compensation on an at-will basis that clears our poverty guidelines. We could abolish "wage slavery" and homelessness, at the same time.

Go do the math ---- how much taxes would we need to collect in order to fund this?

We could be lowering our tax burden and improving the efficiency of our economy. I make a motion to abolish our current regime of unemployment compensation in favor of general taxes on firms, to fund the unemployment compensation fund.

It will cost less than we are paying now, and it will improve the performance of our economy.

Interesting ... you propose to change the method of funding in order to reduce the cost. You DO realize that one has nothing to do with the other, right? Cost is driven by benefit x no of recipients ..... which is not affected by the funding mechanism.

You also realize that increasing the tax burden on companies increases the retail burden on the buyers, right? Once you do that, then you increase the sales tax burden, as well.

Your approach is simplistic and unrealistic ... a toxic combination of naivete and ignorance.

Yes, they do; you simply don't know what you are talking about. Our current regime is expensive, that is all. We simply need to simplify our tax collection. A general tax is much simpler than a direct tax.

Ignorance run rampant in your part of town?

 

[JonKoch]

When, if ever. . . will the leftardz ever learn that a Tax on the "rich" IS a tax on the poor?!?

REALLY? LMAOROG

We can't dare touch those babies with the obligation to fund OUR Gov't or they'll put their money under their pillows???

Idiot.

Let's go through this slowly with some q&a.

1. Where do rich people and their businesses get their money from?

Generally theft

Bubs, care to point to ANYTIME taxing the rich hurt growth???? The economy?

You keep s*cking off those "job creators" Bubs

Okay, your answer is idiotic as hell.... But let's run with it. Who does the rich and their big businesses "steal" from?

Those providing labor

Now WTF should the wealthiest pay low tax rates? Did we not have millions of jobs created pre Reaganomics? How about the debt? What benefit do WE derive from subsidizing 50,000+ families worth a min of $100,000,0000 each AS A SOCIETY?

 

[JonKoch]

Simply fund unemployment compensation on an at-will basis that clears our poverty guidelines. We could abolish "wage slavery" and homelessness, at the same time.

Go do the math ---- how much taxes would we need to collect in order to fund this?

We could be lowering our tax burden and improving the efficiency of our economy. I make a motion to abolish our current regime of unemployment compensation in favor of general taxes on firms, to fund the unemployment compensation fund.

It will cost less than we are paying now, and it will improve the performance of our economy.

Interesting ... you propose to change the method of funding in order to reduce the cost. You DO realize that one has nothing to do with the other, right? Cost is driven by benefit x no of recipients ..... which is not affected by the funding mechanism.

You also realize that increasing the tax burden on companies increases the retail burden on the buyers, right? Once you do that, then you increase the sales tax burden, as well.

Your approach is simplistic and unrealistic ... a toxic combination of naivete and ignorance.

Yes, they do; you simply don't know what you are talking about. Our current regime is expensive, that is all. We simply need to simplify our tax collection. A general tax is much simpler than a direct tax.

Ignorance run rampant in your part of town?

YOO-HOO BUBBA YOU SEEM TO HAVE MISSED THIS ONE

Who bears the burden of the corporate income tax?


US TREASURY STUDY 2012:

DISTRIBUTING THE CORPORATE INCOME TAX: REVISED U.S. TREASURY METHODOLOGY

...In summary, 82% of the corporate income tax burden is distributed to capital income and 18% is distributed to labor income.
Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

AGAIN, I'LL PATIENTLY AWAIT YOUR ANSWER

 

[Spare_change]

Bull shit. Looks like you never took a statistics class or failed one.

Would that be a statistics class where you're taught cutting tax revenue will somehow increase tax revenue?

obviously the more you tax the more you kill the economy and less revenue you collect

LMAOROG, Gawd you are as dumb as a rock

Study: Optimal Top Tax Rate For The Rich Is 70 Percent

According research by Nobel Prize-winning economist Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez, the optimal top income tax rate for wealthy earners is about 70 percent, far below today’s top rate of 35 percent. Diamond and Saez argue that the top tax rate should be set at the point where it maximizes revenue, which can then be used to aid lower-income Americans. They also note that “even increasing the average federal income tax rate of the top percentile to 43.5 percent, which would be sufficient to raise revenue by 3 percentage points of GDP, would still leave the after-tax income share of the top percentile more than twice as high as in 1970.”
Study: Optimal Top Tax Rate For The Rich Is 70 Percent

YOU DO KNOW THERE IS A LEFT AND RIGHT OF LAFFER'S CURVE RIGHT? RONNIE REAGAN HAD A TOP RATE OF 50% WHEN YOU KLOWNS CLAIM THE ECONOMY WAS BOOMING!!!

Once again, simplicity has tripped you up.

What was the net tax rate during the period of 50%? How much wages/income was going to taxes?

What is the net tax rate today? It isn't only about income tax, or only about capital gains tax, or only about sales tax, or only about corporate tax. It is the collective impact of the overall tax load.

 

[JonKoch]

Hint THAT'S what a surplus is Bubs, grow a brain. A budget is yearly, you can have a balanced, deficit or surplus, BJ Bill had 4 surpluses, 3 after vetoing the GOP's $792+ billion tax cut, then Dubya came along and those "fiscal CONServatives" of the GOP showed US, again!

Figures don't lie - but liars figure.

Clinton added $1.36 trillion to the national debt. Hardly sounds like a balanced budget - or a surplus.

"From 1940 to the end of year 2015 (the latest figures available as of the writing of this article), the average increase in the federal debt was 9.3% under a Democratic President and 7.9% under a Republican President when including World War II."

The federal debt under Clinton equalled 62% of the GDP, an unsurpassed amount until Obama's administration - when it started out at 64% and increased to 102% of GDP.

U.S. Federal Debt by President / Political Party

If you're going to try to manipulate the numbers in order to foment a lie, at least use defensible numbers.

Got it you want to conflate debt with a yearly budget *Shaking head*

HINT, BJ BILL HAD 4 SURPLUSES, 3 AFTER VETOING THOSE FISCAL GOP'S $792 BILLION TAX CUT, THEN DUBYA WAS ELECTED, LOL

Four surpluses and STILL added $1.4 trillion to the national debt??

So, basically, what you're saying is that during the first four years when Dems were in charge of Congress, they spent like drunken sailors, but during the last four years that Congress was controlled by the Republicans, he followed their lead, announced that " ... the era of big government is over ... " adopted their sane fiscal approach, and were able to offset all but $1.36 trillion of the debacle from the first 4 years.

Yes, DEBT is different than a yearly budget, but BJ Bill got US back to 20% of GDP after not a single GOPer voted for the 1993 tax increases that created the surpluses



BTW, this is what the GOPers were saying about the 1993 tax bill


FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’
FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’




After BJ Bill had his first budget surplus, he had to veto the GOP's $792+ billion tax cut to get three more, then Dubya was installed as Prez and the GOP had control of the economy

but Obama increased the debt by how much?

what does decreasing the deficit matter when we just borrow more to maintain and increase our spending?

STILL waiting for the policies passed under Obama that created this debt you righties LOVE to talk about?

I mean it can't be Dubya inheriting a Gov't with 20% of GDP revenues and spending while leaving Obama 14.6% revenues and almost 24% on spending could it???

 

[JonKoch]

Bull shit. Looks like you never took a statistics class or failed one.

Would that be a statistics class where you're taught cutting tax revenue will somehow increase tax revenue?

obviously the more you tax the more you kill the economy and less revenue you collect

LMAOROG, Gawd you are as dumb as a rock

Study: Optimal Top Tax Rate For The Rich Is 70 Percent

According research by Nobel Prize-winning economist Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez, the optimal top income tax rate for wealthy earners is about 70 percent, far below today’s top rate of 35 percent. Diamond and Saez argue that the top tax rate should be set at the point where it maximizes revenue, which can then be used to aid lower-income Americans. They also note that “even increasing the average federal income tax rate of the top percentile to 43.5 percent, which would be sufficient to raise revenue by 3 percentage points of GDP, would still leave the after-tax income share of the top percentile more than twice as high as in 1970.”
Study: Optimal Top Tax Rate For The Rich Is 70 Percent

YOU DO KNOW THERE IS A LEFT AND RIGHT OF LAFFER'S CURVE RIGHT? RONNIE REAGAN HAD A TOP RATE OF 50% WHEN YOU KLOWNS CLAIM THE ECONOMY WAS BOOMING!!!

Once again, simplicity has tripped you up.

What was the net tax rate during the period of 50%? How much wages/income was going to taxes?

What is the net tax rate today? It isn't only about income tax, or only about capital gains tax, or only about sales tax, or only about corporate tax. It is the collective impact of the overall tax load.

You mean when Carter left 19.6% of GDP and Ronnie GUTTED it to 17.4%?

TAXES ON THE RICH GREATLY WERE REDUCED BUBS, BUT RONNIE INCREASED TAXES ON THE POOR/MIDDLE CLASS 11 TIMES TO MAKE UP REVENUES!

Are you EVER going to have a valid point Bubs?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Figures don't lie - but liars figure.

Clinton added $1.36 trillion to the national debt. Hardly sounds like a balanced budget - or a surplus.

"From 1940 to the end of year 2015 (the latest figures available as of the writing of this article), the average increase in the federal debt was 9.3% under a Democratic President and 7.9% under a Republican President when including World War II."

The federal debt under Clinton equalled 62% of the GDP, an unsurpassed amount until Obama's administration - when it started out at 64% and increased to 102% of GDP.

U.S. Federal Debt by President / Political Party

If you're going to try to manipulate the numbers in order to foment a lie, at least use defensible numbers.

Got it you want to conflate debt with a yearly budget *Shaking head*

HINT, BJ BILL HAD 4 SURPLUSES, 3 AFTER VETOING THOSE FISCAL GOP'S $792 BILLION TAX CUT, THEN DUBYA WAS ELECTED, LOL

Four surpluses and STILL added $1.4 trillion to the national debt??

So, basically, what you're saying is that during the first four years when Dems were in charge of Congress, they spent like drunken sailors, but during the last four years that Congress was controlled by the Republicans, he followed their lead, announced that " ... the era of big government is over ... " adopted their sane fiscal approach, and were able to offset all but $1.36 trillion of the debacle from the first 4 years.

Yes, DEBT is different than a yearly budget, but BJ Bill got US back to 20% of GDP after not a single GOPer voted for the 1993 tax increases that created the surpluses



BTW, this is what the GOPers were saying about the 1993 tax bill


FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’
FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’




After BJ Bill had his first budget surplus, he had to veto the GOP's $792+ billion tax cut to get three more, then Dubya was installed as Prez and the GOP had control of the economy

but Obama increased the debt by how much?

what does decreasing the deficit matter when we just borrow more to maintain and increase our spending?

AGAIN, Care to point to POLICIES under Obama that created the debt?

HINT Dubya took BJ Bill's 20% of GDP and dropped it to 14.6% AS he blew up spending to nearly 24% of GDP AS he cheered on the Banksters subprime bubble. TRY to think

What does decreasing the deficit by 2/3rds compared to the one the GOPer handed you????

tell me what creates debt?

SPENDING more than revenue
Obama signed off on spending proposals during his terms that nearly doubled the debt

that was his policy

and as I stated a deficit is merely a one year stat debt is collective so tell me why obsess about a one year deficit when the government will just borrow more every year to keep feeding its spending addiction?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Bull shit. Looks like you never took a statistics class or failed one.

Would that be a statistics class where you're taught cutting tax revenue will somehow increase tax revenue?

obviously the more you tax the more you kill the economy and less revenue you collect

LMAOROG, Gawd you are as dumb as a rock

Study: Optimal Top Tax Rate For The Rich Is 70 Percent

According research by Nobel Prize-winning economist Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez, the optimal top income tax rate for wealthy earners is about 70 percent, far below today’s top rate of 35 percent. Diamond and Saez argue that the top tax rate should be set at the point where it maximizes revenue, which can then be used to aid lower-income Americans. They also note that “even increasing the average federal income tax rate of the top percentile to 43.5 percent, which would be sufficient to raise revenue by 3 percentage points of GDP, would still leave the after-tax income share of the top percentile more than twice as high as in 1970.”
Study: Optimal Top Tax Rate For The Rich Is 70 Percent

YOU DO KNOW THERE IS A LEFT AND RIGHT OF LAFFER'S CURVE RIGHT? RONNIE REAGAN HAD A TOP RATE OF 50% WHEN YOU KLOWNS CLAIM THE ECONOMY WAS BOOMING!!!

Once again, simplicity has tripped you up.

What was the net tax rate during the period of 50%? How much wages/income was going to taxes?

What is the net tax rate today? It isn't only about income tax, or only about capital gains tax, or only about sales tax, or only about corporate tax. It is the collective impact of the overall tax load.

You mean when Carter left 19.6% of GDP and Ronnie GUTTED it to 17.4%?

TAXES ON THE RICH GREATLY WERE REDUCED BUBS, BUT RONNIE INCREASED TAXES ON THE POOR/MIDDLE CLASS 11 TIMES TO MAKE UP REVENUES!

Are you EVER going to have a valid point Bubs?

You always want to reduce taxes on the rich since they're the ones that create businesses and make the economy grow in . The top 1% pay 40% of all income tax that represents a huge loss of productivity from our most important people.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Figures don't lie - but liars figure.

Clinton added $1.36 trillion to the national debt. Hardly sounds like a balanced budget - or a surplus.

"From 1940 to the end of year 2015 (the latest figures available as of the writing of this article), the average increase in the federal debt was 9.3% under a Democratic President and 7.9% under a Republican President when including World War II."

The federal debt under Clinton equalled 62% of the GDP, an unsurpassed amount until Obama's administration - when it started out at 64% and increased to 102% of GDP.

U.S. Federal Debt by President / Political Party

If you're going to try to manipulate the numbers in order to foment a lie, at least use defensible numbers.

Got it you want to conflate debt with a yearly budget *Shaking head*

HINT, BJ BILL HAD 4 SURPLUSES, 3 AFTER VETOING THOSE FISCAL GOP'S $792 BILLION TAX CUT, THEN DUBYA WAS ELECTED, LOL

Four surpluses and STILL added $1.4 trillion to the national debt??

So, basically, what you're saying is that during the first four years when Dems were in charge of Congress, they spent like drunken sailors, but during the last four years that Congress was controlled by the Republicans, he followed their lead, announced that " ... the era of big government is over ... " adopted their sane fiscal approach, and were able to offset all but $1.36 trillion of the debacle from the first 4 years.

Yes, DEBT is different than a yearly budget, but BJ Bill got US back to 20% of GDP after not a single GOPer voted for the 1993 tax increases that created the surpluses



BTW, this is what the GOPers were saying about the 1993 tax bill


FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’
FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’




After BJ Bill had his first budget surplus, he had to veto the GOP's $792+ billion tax cut to get three more, then Dubya was installed as Prez and the GOP had control of the economy

but Obama increased the debt by how much?

what does decreasing the deficit matter when we just borrow more to maintain and increase our spending?

STILL waiting for the policies passed under Obama that created this debt you righties LOVE to talk about?

I mean it can't be Dubya inheriting a Gov't with 20% of GDP revenues and spending while leaving Obama 14.6% revenues and almost 24% on spending could it???

well I hate to make your tiny brain explode but I am neither right nor left. I unlike you can think in more than 2 dimensions

 

[Skull Pilot]

Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here. Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes. The Poor! Slavery in action. The more that things change, the more they stay the same.

Here is the way things work in the U.S. Capitalism-Corporations = Society = Government = AMERICA! We are "supposed" to live in a democracy. But the business world rules your lives. How many people in business did you vote for. Do you vote for business or government. People in business who aren't elected shouldn't be directing how people live. That is the government's job.

I say to hell with bribing companies with tax breaks or outright corporate welfare to create jobs. If the private sector can't create jobs, I say that the government should just cut away that that dead weight and start doing the job themselves. Also, want to see something interesting? Go to the internet and look up any year in the last 50 years and see the number of companies in whatever year paid no taxes at all.

so what if a company paid no taxes?

every dollar any business makes eventually ends up in the hands of a person who then must claim that money on their tax returns

in fact S corporations and LLCs ( the most common types of business entities ) pay no federal tax at all since all the profit is claimed on the shareholders' and members' personal tax returns via the IRS form K1

the one percent traditionally consume less than the ninety-nine percent, and create insufficient demand, as a result.

which has nothing to do with my post as usual

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Got it you want to conflate debt with a yearly budget *Shaking head*

HINT, BJ BILL HAD 4 SURPLUSES, 3 AFTER VETOING THOSE FISCAL GOP'S $792 BILLION TAX CUT, THEN DUBYA WAS ELECTED, LOL

Four surpluses and STILL added $1.4 trillion to the national debt??

So, basically, what you're saying is that during the first four years when Dems were in charge of Congress, they spent like drunken sailors, but during the last four years that Congress was controlled by the Republicans, he followed their lead, announced that " ... the era of big government is over ... " adopted their sane fiscal approach, and were able to offset all but $1.36 trillion of the debacle from the first 4 years.

Yes, DEBT is different than a yearly budget, but BJ Bill got US back to 20% of GDP after not a single GOPer voted for the 1993 tax increases that created the surpluses



BTW, this is what the GOPers were saying about the 1993 tax bill


FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’
FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’




After BJ Bill had his first budget surplus, he had to veto the GOP's $792+ billion tax cut to get three more, then Dubya was installed as Prez and the GOP had control of the economy

but Obama increased the debt by how much?

what does decreasing the deficit matter when we just borrow more to maintain and increase our spending?

STILL waiting for the policies passed under Obama that created this debt you righties LOVE to talk about?

I mean it can't be Dubya inheriting a Gov't with 20% of GDP revenues and spending while leaving Obama 14.6% revenues and almost 24% on spending could it???

well I hate to make your tiny brain explode but I am neither right nor left. I unlike you can think in more than 2 dimensions

Actually there are only two dimensions in all of political philosophy over all ages: freedom versus government. Do you understand

 

[Skull Pilot]

Four surpluses and STILL added $1.4 trillion to the national debt??

So, basically, what you're saying is that during the first four years when Dems were in charge of Congress, they spent like drunken sailors, but during the last four years that Congress was controlled by the Republicans, he followed their lead, announced that " ... the era of big government is over ... " adopted their sane fiscal approach, and were able to offset all but $1.36 trillion of the debacle from the first 4 years.

Yes, DEBT is different than a yearly budget, but BJ Bill got US back to 20% of GDP after not a single GOPer voted for the 1993 tax increases that created the surpluses



BTW, this is what the GOPers were saying about the 1993 tax bill


FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’
FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’




After BJ Bill had his first budget surplus, he had to veto the GOP's $792+ billion tax cut to get three more, then Dubya was installed as Prez and the GOP had control of the economy

but Obama increased the debt by how much?

what does decreasing the deficit matter when we just borrow more to maintain and increase our spending?

STILL waiting for the policies passed under Obama that created this debt you righties LOVE to talk about?

I mean it can't be Dubya inheriting a Gov't with 20% of GDP revenues and spending while leaving Obama 14.6% revenues and almost 24% on spending could it???

well I hate to make your tiny brain explode but I am neither right nor left. I unlike you can think in more than 2 dimensions

Actually there are only two dimensions in all of political philosophy over all ages: freedom versus government. Do you understand

funny but the government part of freedom vs government has many dimensions do you understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Yes, DEBT is different than a yearly budget, but BJ Bill got US back to 20% of GDP after not a single GOPer voted for the 1993 tax increases that created the surpluses



BTW, this is what the GOPers were saying about the 1993 tax bill


FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’
FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’




After BJ Bill had his first budget surplus, he had to veto the GOP's $792+ billion tax cut to get three more, then Dubya was installed as Prez and the GOP had control of the economy

but Obama increased the debt by how much?

what does decreasing the deficit matter when we just borrow more to maintain and increase our spending?

STILL waiting for the policies passed under Obama that created this debt you righties LOVE to talk about?

I mean it can't be Dubya inheriting a Gov't with 20% of GDP revenues and spending while leaving Obama 14.6% revenues and almost 24% on spending could it???

well I hate to make your tiny brain explode but I am neither right nor left. I unlike you can think in more than 2 dimensions

Actually there are only two dimensions in all of political philosophy over all ages: freedom versus government. Do you understand

funny but the government part of freedom vs government has many dimensions do you understand?

No founders believed government is one dimension and that dimension should be tiny

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Bull shit. Looks like you never took a statistics class or failed one.

Would that be a statistics class where you're taught cutting tax revenue will somehow increase tax revenue?

obviously the more you tax the more you kill the economy and less revenue you collect

LMAOROG, Gawd you are as dumb as a rock

Study: Optimal Top Tax Rate For The Rich Is 70 Percent

According research by Nobel Prize-winning economist Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez, the optimal top income tax rate for wealthy earners is about 70 percent, far below today’s top rate of 35 percent. Diamond and Saez argue that the top tax rate should be set at the point where it maximizes revenue, which can then be used to aid lower-income Americans. They also note that “even increasing the average federal income tax rate of the top percentile to 43.5 percent, which would be sufficient to raise revenue by 3 percentage points of GDP, would still leave the after-tax income share of the top percentile more than twice as high as in 1970.”
Study: Optimal Top Tax Rate For The Rich Is 70 Percent

YOU DO KNOW THERE IS A LEFT AND RIGHT OF LAFFER'S CURVE RIGHT? RONNIE REAGAN HAD A TOP RATE OF 50% WHEN YOU KLOWNS CLAIM THE ECONOMY WAS BOOMING!!!

Once again, simplicity has tripped you up.

What was the net tax rate during the period of 50%? How much wages/income was going to taxes?

What is the net tax rate today? It isn't only about income tax, or only about capital gains tax, or only about sales tax, or only about corporate tax. It is the collective impact of the overall tax load.

You mean when Carter left 19.6% of GDP and Ronnie GUTTED it to 17.4%?

TAXES ON THE RICH GREATLY WERE REDUCED BUBS, BUT RONNIE INCREASED TAXES ON THE POOR/MIDDLE CLASS 11 TIMES TO MAKE UP REVENUES!

Are you EVER going to have a valid point Bubs?

TAXES ON THE RICH GREATLY WERE REDUCED BUBS, BUT RONNIE INCREASED TAXES ON THE POOR/MIDDLE CLASS 11 TIMES TO MAKE UP REVENUES!

It's a good thing the tax cuts for the poor and middle class were larger than the hikes, eh?