Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

[Skull Pilot]

and what creates deficits? Spending

Ehhh, not really. Just look at the Bush Tax Cuts. A surplus before the tax cuts, record deficits afterward. Yet spending only grew 12% from 2000-2003, but revenues declined by 14% over the same period. So there was a greater decline in revenues than an increase in spending, according to the Tax Policy Center.

and tax cuts do not have to pay for themselves because they cost nothing.

They cost quite a bit, as we see in the revenue numbers and the erasing of a surplus. And this is also a sudden change of argument. The argument used to be that tax cuts would produce so much revenue, there wouldn't be a need for spending cuts because look at all the revenues! When that turned out to be a crock of shit, Conservatives shifted the argument over and over and over, ignoring math for feelings and hysteria.

If Bush had not cut taxes, we could have paid the debt off by 2010. Instead, it doubled by 2009.

and if you think taxing people keeps them out of debt then you are extremely naive. I suppose you're going to tell me raising taxes on people is for their own good right after all the fucking government knows how to spend their money and get into debt better than anyone right?

The facts show that every time taxes are cut, household debt increases. So why is that? If people are "allowed to keep more of what they earn", what accounts for the massive increase in household debt following tax cuts?

i don't know what's so hard to understand here

Spending in excess of revenue causes both deficits and debt

it ain't fucking rocket science

and did you ever think that government programs like the FHA and GSLs actually encourage people to take on massive debt?

did yo ever think that keeping interest rates artificially low along with government guarantees actually encourage banks to give loans to people that would have been denied those loans in the past?

and we're doing it again by allowing people with a mere 3% down payment for a house to get a government backed mortgage which will increase home sales thereby artificially driving up prices and setting up another bubble to pop

 

[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?

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?

Got it, you will not admit POLICY INHERITED by Obama versus policy CREATED by Ronnie/Dubya created debt.

Hint taking revenues from 19.6%-20% (CARTER/CLINTON) of GDP to 14.6%-17.4% as Dubya/Ronnie did was POLICY that created the debt along with Dubya's 2 UNFUNDED wars Bubs



Spending addiction? LMAOROG

OK so Obama was forced to sign all those spending bills by Reagan's ghost

and you seem to assume that I somehow supported Bush and Reagan

FYI I never did. Reagan was a big government hack just like every other republican I have ever seen

 

[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

More right wing BS Bubs, I see from your comments who you are


Hint libertarians are farrr right on economics as well as the myths and fairy tales they believe in!


BUT YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION???

FYI Not a libertarian either

 

[Skull Pilot]

Cutting taxes on individuals in the 80s seemed to help.

Did it, though? Almost immediately after Reagan's 1981 tax cut, the unemployment rate shot up to a record high of 10.8% by the end of 1982, more than a year after the cuts were passed, and one year with them in effect. Then the Fed lowered interest rates throughout 1982, and increased spending by $32B for 1983. Those things had more to do with revenue growth than the mysterious tax cuts that don't pay for themselves, and never will. Reagan then raised taxes 11 times the rest of his term. How can this be if tax cuts are so wonderful?

Cutting taxes on individuals increases after tax income.

No. It increases household debt. That's it. The reason is because tax cuts have to be paid by something, since they don't pay for themselves (despite Conservatives saying over and over they do), that something always ends up being increased sales and excise taxes, as well as increased tuition and health care costs. Why? Because by cutting revenues, you produce deficits. Those deficits have to be closed somehow. And what is always first on the chopping block? Education. We saw it in Kansas last year. Taxes were cut, massive deficits appeared, the BBA in KS meant that the deficit gap had to be closed. So how did they close it? By raiding the welfare block grant (meaning tax cuts are dependent on welfare), by shutting down Public schools early, and by hiking tuition costs at Kansas' state colleges. We saw the same thing happen in Arizona, Wisconsin, and Louisiana too. In fact, those cuts cost Brownback his teabag KS legislature, cost Jindal his governorship, and cost Walker his credibility (not like he had any in the first place, but whatevs).

The government has pumped trillions into college spending and you're surprised prices have jumped? You never tried again after you failed Econ 101, did you?

Moron, when the government "pours money" into higher education, it does so to decrease tuition costs for students. When government cuts education spending to pay for tax cuts we were promised would pay for themselves, that increases tuition costs because schools have to make up for the funding gap that came from spending cuts. Looks like you need to go back and take Intro to Math for Remedial Students again.

They were too high.

According to whom? Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and created over 22,000,000 jobs. Bush cut taxes in 2001 and lost 460,000. Bush cut taxes because, in his own words, "surpluses mean we are overtaxed" (how are you supposed to pay down debt if you don't have surpluses?) and in Greenspan's own words, that paying off the debt too soon "wouldn't be fair to the bondholders". The whole reasoning behind the Bush Tax Cuts -besides the false promise they would pay for themselves- was more of the same trickle-down bullshit nonsense we've heard the last 40 years. It took a housing bubble in order to get the economy moving again. A housing bubble you blame on Clinton and the Democrats. But doing so means you cannot credit Bush for the resulting growth from that housing bubble. You can't give Bush credit for something while blaming everyone else for the consequences of that thing. I mean, you can, but you're just being shitty when you do.

I paid down my household debt with my tax cut.

And right on cue comes the unverifiable Conservative anecdote that is supposed to be a substitute for actual fact. I don't believe you when you make these wild claims. You wouldn't believe me if I told you I was Tom Brady, so why the fuck should I believe you when you make claims about yourself?

ou think tax cuts can be blamed for private sector job loss? Wait...you're trying to make liberals look stupid. Now your posts make sense. Thanks!

Hold the phone, dude! The promise of tax cuts was that they would create jobs and growth. Neither of which happened. So the promise is bullshit, which makes the policy bullshit. Tax cuts kill jobs. We saw it during Reagan (unemployment spiked immediately after the tax cuts were passed), going from 7.4% in August 1981 (the month Reagan's tax cut was passed), up to 10.8% unemployment by December 1982. So if tax cuts create jobs, where were all the jobs? The only conclusion we can make is that cutting taxes did nothing to increase consumer demand, which flat-lined resulting in a decline of business expansion and layoffs.

correlation does not equal causation

 

[JonKoch]

and what creates deficits? Spending

Ehhh, not really. Just look at the Bush Tax Cuts. A surplus before the tax cuts, record deficits afterward. Yet spending only grew 12% from 2000-2003, but revenues declined by 14% over the same period. So there was a greater decline in revenues than an increase in spending, according to the Tax Policy Center.

and tax cuts do not have to pay for themselves because they cost nothing.

They cost quite a bit, as we see in the revenue numbers and the erasing of a surplus. And this is also a sudden change of argument. The argument used to be that tax cuts would produce so much revenue, there wouldn't be a need for spending cuts because look at all the revenues! When that turned out to be a crock of shit, Conservatives shifted the argument over and over and over, ignoring math for feelings and hysteria.

If Bush had not cut taxes, we could have paid the debt off by 2010. Instead, it doubled by 2009.

and if you think taxing people keeps them out of debt then you are extremely naive. I suppose you're going to tell me raising taxes on people is for their own good right after all the fucking government knows how to spend their money and get into debt better than anyone right?

The facts show that every time taxes are cut, household debt increases. So why is that? If people are "allowed to keep more of what they earn", what accounts for the massive increase in household debt following tax cuts?

i don't know what's so hard to understand here

Spending in excess of revenue causes both deficits and debt

it ain't fucking rocket science

and did you ever think that government programs like the FHA and GSLs actually encourage people to take on massive debt?

did yo ever think that keeping interest rates artificially low along with government guarantees actually encourage banks to give loans to people that would have been denied those loans in the past?

and we're doing it again by allowing people with a mere 3% down payment for a house to get a government backed mortgage which will increase home sales thereby artificially driving up prices and setting up another bubble to pop

WEIRD, GSE's have been around for almost 70 years when Dubya launched his "home ownership society" which coincided with Banksters being "creative" enough to create and market in LARGE numbers MBS's, yet it was 3% Gov't backed loans that were the problem?

HINT GOV'T BACKED LOANS WERE 450%-600% BETTER IN LOAN PERFORMANCE THAN PRIVATE BANKSTERS LOANS, INCLUDING THE LONG GREAT PERFORMING ZERO DOWN VA LOANS



GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance
GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance


Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up


The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.

Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom

Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards
http://ritholtz.com/2011/11/examining-the-big-lie-how-the-facts-of-the-economic-crisis-stack-up/


NOTE ANYTHING ON THIS CHART?

The Big Lie of the Financial Crisis

Wall Street has its own version: Its Big Lie is that banks and investment houses are merely victims of the crash. You see, the entire boom and bust was caused by misguided government policies. It was not irresponsible lending or derivative or excess leverage or misguided compensation packages, but rather long-standing housing policies that were at fault.


Indeed, the arguments these folks make fail to withstand even casual scrutiny.
What caused the financial crisis? The Big Lie goes viral

 

[JonKoch]

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?

Got it, you will not admit POLICY INHERITED by Obama versus policy CREATED by Ronnie/Dubya created debt.

Hint taking revenues from 19.6%-20% (CARTER/CLINTON) of GDP to 14.6%-17.4% as Dubya/Ronnie did was POLICY that created the debt along with Dubya's 2 UNFUNDED wars Bubs



Spending addiction? LMAOROG

OK so Obama was forced to sign all those spending bills by Reagan's ghost

and you seem to assume that I somehow supported Bush and Reagan

FYI I never did. Reagan was a big government hack just like every other republican I have ever seen

Sorry I forget in right wing nut job world, GOP policy dies the day the next guy takes over *shaking head*

Want to share where you "independents" pushing austerity had success ANYTIME in a recession by cutting spending?

Now who said YOU supported anyone Bubs? I simply point out historical facts that POLICY MATTERS and unlike you right wingers believe, it has long term consequences

 

[JonKoch]

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

More right wing BS Bubs, I see from your comments who you are


Hint libertarians are farrr right on economics as well as the myths and fairy tales they believe in!


BUT YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION???

FYI Not a libertarian either

Just a nut job right winger huh?

 

[JonKoch]

Cutting taxes on individuals in the 80s seemed to help.

Did it, though? Almost immediately after Reagan's 1981 tax cut, the unemployment rate shot up to a record high of 10.8% by the end of 1982, more than a year after the cuts were passed, and one year with them in effect. Then the Fed lowered interest rates throughout 1982, and increased spending by $32B for 1983. Those things had more to do with revenue growth than the mysterious tax cuts that don't pay for themselves, and never will. Reagan then raised taxes 11 times the rest of his term. How can this be if tax cuts are so wonderful?

Cutting taxes on individuals increases after tax income.

No. It increases household debt. That's it. The reason is because tax cuts have to be paid by something, since they don't pay for themselves (despite Conservatives saying over and over they do), that something always ends up being increased sales and excise taxes, as well as increased tuition and health care costs. Why? Because by cutting revenues, you produce deficits. Those deficits have to be closed somehow. And what is always first on the chopping block? Education. We saw it in Kansas last year. Taxes were cut, massive deficits appeared, the BBA in KS meant that the deficit gap had to be closed. So how did they close it? By raiding the welfare block grant (meaning tax cuts are dependent on welfare), by shutting down Public schools early, and by hiking tuition costs at Kansas' state colleges. We saw the same thing happen in Arizona, Wisconsin, and Louisiana too. In fact, those cuts cost Brownback his teabag KS legislature, cost Jindal his governorship, and cost Walker his credibility (not like he had any in the first place, but whatevs).

The government has pumped trillions into college spending and you're surprised prices have jumped? You never tried again after you failed Econ 101, did you?

Moron, when the government "pours money" into higher education, it does so to decrease tuition costs for students. When government cuts education spending to pay for tax cuts we were promised would pay for themselves, that increases tuition costs because schools have to make up for the funding gap that came from spending cuts. Looks like you need to go back and take Intro to Math for Remedial Students again.

They were too high.

According to whom? Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and created over 22,000,000 jobs. Bush cut taxes in 2001 and lost 460,000. Bush cut taxes because, in his own words, "surpluses mean we are overtaxed" (how are you supposed to pay down debt if you don't have surpluses?) and in Greenspan's own words, that paying off the debt too soon "wouldn't be fair to the bondholders". The whole reasoning behind the Bush Tax Cuts -besides the false promise they would pay for themselves- was more of the same trickle-down bullshit nonsense we've heard the last 40 years. It took a housing bubble in order to get the economy moving again. A housing bubble you blame on Clinton and the Democrats. But doing so means you cannot credit Bush for the resulting growth from that housing bubble. You can't give Bush credit for something while blaming everyone else for the consequences of that thing. I mean, you can, but you're just being shitty when you do.

I paid down my household debt with my tax cut.

And right on cue comes the unverifiable Conservative anecdote that is supposed to be a substitute for actual fact. I don't believe you when you make these wild claims. You wouldn't believe me if I told you I was Tom Brady, so why the fuck should I believe you when you make claims about yourself?

ou think tax cuts can be blamed for private sector job loss? Wait...you're trying to make liberals look stupid. Now your posts make sense. Thanks!

Hold the phone, dude! The promise of tax cuts was that they would create jobs and growth. Neither of which happened. So the promise is bullshit, which makes the policy bullshit. Tax cuts kill jobs. We saw it during Reagan (unemployment spiked immediately after the tax cuts were passed), going from 7.4% in August 1981 (the month Reagan's tax cut was passed), up to 10.8% unemployment by December 1982. So if tax cuts create jobs, where were all the jobs? The only conclusion we can make is that cutting taxes did nothing to increase consumer demand, which flat-lined resulting in a decline of business expansion and layoffs.

correlation does not equal causation

Good rebuttal Bubs

 

[danielpalos]

Ok. So, are "those providing labor" rich people or poor people?

They're just people. But productivity has increased, yet wages remain largely stagnant. So where are all those profits going?

One thing at a time.

I am trying to make the point that a "tax on the rich is a tax on the poor."

You are claiming that the rich are STEALING off of their workers by not paying them enough for their labor.

Correct?

THAT'S JUST BS

The U.S. Treasury uses a rate of 82 percent of Corp tax burden falling on OWNERS OF CAPITAL

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/TP-5.pdf

Corporate tax: the great incidence hoax
Corporate tax: the great incidence hoax - Tax Justice Network


OF COURSE THAT "JOB CREATOR" CLASS SURE HAS SPENT BILLIONS TO PARROT YOUR BS TALKING POINTS AS THEIR WEALTH HAS EXPLODED SINCE REAGANOMICS!

Your deflecting will not work on me.

Where do the rich get their money from?

If it is not, "new money", they are probably getting it from the poor. Why do you think, that is soo, Institutional?

 

[danielpalos]

Ok. So, are "those providing labor" rich people or poor people?

They're just people. But productivity has increased, yet wages remain largely stagnant. So where are all those profits going?

One thing at a time.

I am trying to make the point that a "tax on the rich is a tax on the poor."

You are claiming that the rich are STEALING off of their workers by not paying them enough for their labor.

Correct?

THAT'S JUST BS

The U.S. Treasury uses a rate of 82 percent of Corp tax burden falling on OWNERS OF CAPITAL

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/TP-5.pdf

Corporate tax: the great incidence hoax
Corporate tax: the great incidence hoax - Tax Justice Network


OF COURSE THAT "JOB CREATOR" CLASS SURE HAS SPENT BILLIONS TO PARROT YOUR BS TALKING POINTS AS THEIR WEALTH HAS EXPLODED SINCE REAGANOMICS!

Your deflecting will not work on me.

Where do the rich get their money from?

TAX POLICY SURE HAS HELPED THE PAST 36 YEARS BUBBA

I'll note YOU IGNORE THE CORP TAX INCIDENCE AND WHO IT FALLS ON HOWEVER

Should we ask our red herring specialists on the right wing, how much actual work, the one percent did to "earn" their money?

For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat."

Is there any, "capital exclusion clause" or is it a social, "moral absolute", regardless of Capitalism.

 

[JonKoch]

They're just people. But productivity has increased, yet wages remain largely stagnant. So where are all those profits going?

One thing at a time.

I am trying to make the point that a "tax on the rich is a tax on the poor."

You are claiming that the rich are STEALING off of their workers by not paying them enough for their labor.

Correct?

THAT'S JUST BS

The U.S. Treasury uses a rate of 82 percent of Corp tax burden falling on OWNERS OF CAPITAL

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/TP-5.pdf

Corporate tax: the great incidence hoax
Corporate tax: the great incidence hoax - Tax Justice Network


OF COURSE THAT "JOB CREATOR" CLASS SURE HAS SPENT BILLIONS TO PARROT YOUR BS TALKING POINTS AS THEIR WEALTH HAS EXPLODED SINCE REAGANOMICS!

Your deflecting will not work on me.

Where do the rich get their money from?

TAX POLICY SURE HAS HELPED THE PAST 36 YEARS BUBBA

I'll note YOU IGNORE THE CORP TAX INCIDENCE AND WHO IT FALLS ON HOWEVER

Should we ask our red herring specialists on the right wing, how much actual work, the one percent did to "earn" their money?

For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat."

Is there any, "capital exclusion clause" or is it a social, "moral absolute", regardless of Capitalism.

Well those 1%ers DID spend billions to create "think tanks" and public policy places like Heritage, AEI, CATO, etc to push their "agenda" (read tax cuts for the richest) , and bribe the guys in DC

It's absolutely amazing how far these right wingers go to protect the Gangster capitalism practiced today, then support the biggest conman (El Cheeto) since PT Barnum *shaking head*

 

[danielpalos]

One thing at a time.

I am trying to make the point that a "tax on the rich is a tax on the poor."

You are claiming that the rich are STEALING off of their workers by not paying them enough for their labor.

Correct?

THAT'S JUST BS

The U.S. Treasury uses a rate of 82 percent of Corp tax burden falling on OWNERS OF CAPITAL

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/TP-5.pdf

Corporate tax: the great incidence hoax
Corporate tax: the great incidence hoax - Tax Justice Network


OF COURSE THAT "JOB CREATOR" CLASS SURE HAS SPENT BILLIONS TO PARROT YOUR BS TALKING POINTS AS THEIR WEALTH HAS EXPLODED SINCE REAGANOMICS!

Your deflecting will not work on me.

Where do the rich get their money from?

TAX POLICY SURE HAS HELPED THE PAST 36 YEARS BUBBA

I'll note YOU IGNORE THE CORP TAX INCIDENCE AND WHO IT FALLS ON HOWEVER

Should we ask our red herring specialists on the right wing, how much actual work, the one percent did to "earn" their money?

For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat."

Is there any, "capital exclusion clause" or is it a social, "moral absolute", regardless of Capitalism.

Well those 1%ers DID spend billions to create "think tanks" and public policy places like Heritage, AEI, CATO, etc to push their "agenda" (read tax cuts for the richest) , and bribe the guys in DC

It's absolutely amazing how far these right wingers go to protect the Gangster capitalism practiced today, then support the biggest conman (El Cheeto) since PT Barnum *shaking head*

I am on the federal left. It is about, "divide and conquer in politics". We need to work on, finding the "weak point" on the right wing, where the religious right meets the secular right.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

CLINTON PAID DOWN PUBLIC DEBT BUBS

actually Newt forced Clinton to lie and say era of big govt is over, to pay down debt, to end welfare as we know it, and pass a middle class tax cut. Did you know that Clinton was a Democrat?? Slow??

Yeah you keep believing that BS Bubs

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’

WITHOUT A SINGLE GOP VOTE THE DEMS CREATED 3 NEW BRACKETS AND TOOK THE TOP RATE TO 39.6% AND REVENUES STARTING GOING BACK UP TO WHERE CARTER HAD THEM BEFORE RONNIE GUTTED THEM BUBS, AND WE HAD 4 SURPLUSES, 3 AFTER VETOING THE GOP'S $792+ BILLION TAX CUT!!!


1997: Gingrich Congress Slashes Taxes - For the Wealthiest
Newt Gingrich and the anti-tax revolutionaries who seized control of Congress in 1994 responded by going for the Full Norquist. In a stunning departure from America's long-standing tax policy, Republicans moved to eliminate taxes on investment income and to abolish the inheritance tax. Under the final plan they enacted, capital gains taxes were sliced to 20 percent. Far from creating an across-the-board benefit, 62 cents of every tax dollar cut went directly to the top one percent of income earners.
1997: Gingrich Congress Slashes Taxes - For the Wealthiest

No More Paradise for Patrician Parasites

We can eliminate taxes altogether by abolishing inheritance. The dead won't mind the Death Tax.

Under theocracy, it was thought that God decided who would be born rich. We still suffer from that superstition today. Who promotes it? What kind of self-hatred or hatred of their fathers would make people believe such insulting propaganda?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

It's absolutely amazing how far these right wingers go to protect the Gangster capitalism practiced today, then support the biggest conman (El Cheeto) since PT Barnum *shaking head*

Bad Cop, Good Cop Scenario

It's amazing how far the Preppy Progressives will go to pretend they're anything but set-up men, agents provocateurs, for their Right Wing fraternity brothers. Calling us "deplorables" and then saying they hate the rich tricks us into loving the rich. It's amazing that the majority has been so mind-numbed that they can't see through this charade.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

CLINTON PAID DOWN PUBLIC DEBT BUBS

actually Newt forced Clinton to lie and say era of big govt is over, to pay down debt, to end welfare as we know it, and pass a middle class tax cut. Did you know that Clinton was a Democrat?? Slow??

Yeah you keep believing that BS Bubs

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’

WITHOUT A SINGLE GOP VOTE THE DEMS CREATED 3 NEW BRACKETS AND TOOK THE TOP RATE TO 39.6% AND REVENUES STARTING GOING BACK UP TO WHERE CARTER HAD THEM BEFORE RONNIE GUTTED THEM BUBS, AND WE HAD 4 SURPLUSES, 3 AFTER VETOING THE GOP'S $792+ BILLION TAX CUT!!!


1997: Gingrich Congress Slashes Taxes - For the Wealthiest
Newt Gingrich and the anti-tax revolutionaries who seized control of Congress in 1994 responded by going for the Full Norquist. In a stunning departure from America's long-standing tax policy, Republicans moved to eliminate taxes on investment income and to abolish the inheritance tax. Under the final plan they enacted, capital gains taxes were sliced to 20 percent. Far from creating an across-the-board benefit, 62 cents of every tax dollar cut went directly to the top one percent of income earners.
1997: Gingrich Congress Slashes Taxes - For the Wealthiest

No More Paradise for Patrician Parasites

We can eliminate taxes altogether by abolishing inheritance. The dead won't mind the Death Tax.

Under theocracy, it was thought that God decided who would be born rich. We still suffer from that superstition today. Who promotes it? What kind of self-hatred or hatred of their fathers would make people believe such insulting propaganda?

Abolishing inHeritance??? You want to steal money from dead people? Do you want to prevent smart people from giving their children their smart jeans do you want to prevent hard-working people from giving their children a hard work ethic do you want to prevent good looking people from giving their children good looks do you want people who love their children more than others to be prevented from doing that too after all we don't like evolution we want to make sure everyone is equal also if wealthy people know you're going to steal their money at gun point they will spend it before they die but then you could prevent them from giving away their money or spending it five years before they died.ultimately you're a Nazi Who wants the government to have 10,000 and one more controls over our lives than it already has

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Everyone who has ever fucking proposed them.

Everyone who ever proposed a tax cut said they all pay for themselves? Are you sure?

But if you're telling me now that they don't pay for themselves, then there goes the premise that cutting taxes creates growth

Nope. Cutting taxes can cause growth, even if they don't "pay for themselves".

There goes the premise that cutting taxes creates jobs.

Nope. Cutting taxes can create jobs, even if they don't "pay for themselves".

So if they don't grow the economy, don't increase revenues, and don't create jobs,

They do, they don't (usually) and they do.

then what's the fucking point of them?

To grow the economy, create jobs and shrink government as a % of GDP.

You mean when Obama raised taxes, jobs were created?

I mean when jobs were created, Obama still managed to balloon transfer payment spending.

So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve.

NO THEY DON'T!

Yes, tax cuts leave more money in the hands of the people.

So this is where theory gets crushed by reality. Your theory is that tax cuts will result in more spending (that's what you're saying here...that they "pay for themselves").

My theory is that tax cuts increase growth.
That growth will make the tax revenue decrease smaller than the tax cut.

Let's test it from your end of the spectrum.

Tomorrow the Federal government doubles every single tax rate.
Does the government collect twice as much revenue? More? Less? Why?

No, what it shows is that when taxes are cut, tuition costs rise.

At what point on that graph were the Federal Tax rates cut?

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."



OH SO YOU MEAN TOP RATES WITHOUT DEDUCTIONS OF 65%-70%

SAEZ:

65%

https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/course/optimallabortax/tax-redistribution_slides.pdf



The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics reports that a comparison of academic studies yields a range of revenue maximizing rates that centers around 70%

Book sources - Wikipedia

Economist Paul Pecorino presented a model in 1995 that predicted the peak of the Laffer curve occurred at tax rates around 65%

Tax rates and tax revenues in a model of growth through human capital accumulation - ScienceDirect


SO WHY THIS DOGMA FROM THE RIGHT ABOUT TAX RATES TOO HIGH WHEN RONNIE HAD THE TOP RATE AT 50% FOR 6 YEARS???

SO WHY THIS DOGMA FROM THE RIGHT ABOUT TAX RATES TOO HIGH WHEN RONNIE HAD THE TOP RATE AT 50% FOR 6 YEARS???

Because 50% is too high.
Because 40% is too high.

Good dodge Bubs

You said tax cuts BECAUSE:

"then what's the fucking point of them?

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

AND IT WAS A DIRECT REASON YOU STATED:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

SINCE I'VE SHOWN RATES ARE NOWHERE NEAR THE RIGHT SIDE OF LAFFERS CURVE, WHY DO YOU KLOWNS KEEP WANTING TO REWARD THE "JOB CREATOR" CLASS AS DEBT IS INCREASING???

Grow an economy, create jobs and stay off the right side of Laffer's curve are ALL BS responses from you RWNJ's!

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

Yup.Tax cuts to below that rate would pay for themselves.
Tax cuts below that level wouldn't. So? They should still be cut.

Yep, good dodge AGAIN Bubs

What you said:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

An Economist Is a Toy Rat for the Fat Cats to Play With

This is all irrelevant. With very different economic policies, both the Reagan boom and the Clinton boom were caused by the only thing they had in common: low oil prices.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

CLINTON PAID DOWN PUBLIC DEBT BUBS

actually Newt forced Clinton to lie and say era of big govt is over, to pay down debt, to end welfare as we know it, and pass a middle class tax cut. Did you know that Clinton was a Democrat?? Slow??

But why wait until people are dead to steal their money at gunpoint why not just steal it soon say when people hit age 65

Yeah you keep believing that BS Bubs

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’

WITHOUT A SINGLE GOP VOTE THE DEMS CREATED 3 NEW BRACKETS AND TOOK THE TOP RATE TO 39.6% AND REVENUES STARTING GOING BACK UP TO WHERE CARTER HAD THEM BEFORE RONNIE GUTTED THEM BUBS, AND WE HAD 4 SURPLUSES, 3 AFTER VETOING THE GOP'S $792+ BILLION TAX CUT!!!


1997: Gingrich Congress Slashes Taxes - For the Wealthiest
Newt Gingrich and the anti-tax revolutionaries who seized control of Congress in 1994 responded by going for the Full Norquist. In a stunning departure from America's long-standing tax policy, Republicans moved to eliminate taxes on investment income and to abolish the inheritance tax. Under the final plan they enacted, capital gains taxes were sliced to 20 percent. Far from creating an across-the-board benefit, 62 cents of every tax dollar cut went directly to the top one percent of income earners.
1997: Gingrich Congress Slashes Taxes - For the Wealthiest

No More Paradise for Patrician Parasites

We can eliminate taxes altogether by abolishing inheritance. The dead won't mind the Death Tax.

Under theocracy, it was thought that God decided who would be born rich. We still suffer from that superstition today. Who promotes it? What kind of self-hatred or hatred of their fathers would make people believe such insulting propaganda?

But why wait until people are dead to steal their money at gunpoint why not take it say when they reach age 65 if we're going to be Soviet we might as well be Soviet all the way?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."



OH SO YOU MEAN TOP RATES WITHOUT DEDUCTIONS OF 65%-70%

SAEZ:

65%

https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/course/optimallabortax/tax-redistribution_slides.pdf



The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics reports that a comparison of academic studies yields a range of revenue maximizing rates that centers around 70%

Book sources - Wikipedia

Economist Paul Pecorino presented a model in 1995 that predicted the peak of the Laffer curve occurred at tax rates around 65%

Tax rates and tax revenues in a model of growth through human capital accumulation - ScienceDirect


SO WHY THIS DOGMA FROM THE RIGHT ABOUT TAX RATES TOO HIGH WHEN RONNIE HAD THE TOP RATE AT 50% FOR 6 YEARS???

SO WHY THIS DOGMA FROM THE RIGHT ABOUT TAX RATES TOO HIGH WHEN RONNIE HAD THE TOP RATE AT 50% FOR 6 YEARS???

Because 50% is too high.
Because 40% is too high.

Good dodge Bubs

You said tax cuts BECAUSE:

"then what's the fucking point of them?

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

AND IT WAS A DIRECT REASON YOU STATED:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

SINCE I'VE SHOWN RATES ARE NOWHERE NEAR THE RIGHT SIDE OF LAFFERS CURVE, WHY DO YOU KLOWNS KEEP WANTING TO REWARD THE "JOB CREATOR" CLASS AS DEBT IS INCREASING???

Grow an economy, create jobs and stay off the right side of Laffer's curve are ALL BS responses from you RWNJ's!

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

Yup.Tax cuts to below that rate would pay for themselves.
Tax cuts below that level wouldn't. So? They should still be cut.

Yep, good dodge AGAIN Bubs

What you said:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

An Economist Is a Toy Rat for the Fat Cats to Play With

This is all irrelevant. With very different economic policies, both the Reagan boom and the Clinton boom were caused by the only thing they had in common: low oil prices.

Well Obama had Republican Frak Ing and horizontal drilling to keep oil price very low and yet he never had one year of 3% growth so there goes your theory

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

and what creates deficits? Spending

Ehhh, not really. Just look at the Bush Tax Cuts. A surplus before the tax cuts, record deficits afterward. Yet spending only grew 12% from 2000-2003, but revenues declined by 14% over the same period. So there was a greater decline in revenues than an increase in spending, according to the Tax Policy Center.

and tax cuts do not have to pay for themselves because they cost nothing.

They cost quite a bit, as we see in the revenue numbers and the erasing of a surplus. And this is also a sudden change of argument. The argument used to be that tax cuts would produce so much revenue, there wouldn't be a need for spending cuts because look at all the revenues! When that turned out to be a crock of shit, Conservatives shifted the argument over and over and over, ignoring math for feelings and hysteria.

If Bush had not cut taxes, we could have paid the debt off by 2010. Instead, it doubled by 2009.

and if you think taxing people keeps them out of debt then you are extremely naive. I suppose you're going to tell me raising taxes on people is for their own good right after all the fucking government knows how to spend their money and get into debt better than anyone right?

The facts show that every time taxes are cut, household debt increases. So why is that? If people are "allowed to keep more of what they earn", what accounts for the massive increase in household debt following tax cuts?

i don't know what's so hard to understand here

Spending in excess of revenue causes both deficits and debt

it ain't fucking rocket science

and did you ever think that government programs like the FHA and GSLs actually encourage people to take on massive debt?

did yo ever think that keeping interest rates artificially low along with government guarantees actually encourage banks to give loans to people that would have been denied those loans in the past?

and we're doing it again by allowing people with a mere 3% down payment for a house to get a government backed mortgage which will increase home sales thereby artificially driving up prices and setting up another bubble to pop

WEIRD, GSE's have been around for almost 70 years when Dubya launched his "home ownership society" which coincided with Banksters being "creative" enough to create and market in LARGE numbers MBS's, yet it was 3% Gov't backed loans that were the problem?

HINT GOV'T BACKED LOANS WERE 450%-600% BETTER IN LOAN PERFORMANCE THAN PRIVATE BANKSTERS LOANS, INCLUDING THE LONG GREAT PERFORMING ZERO DOWN VA LOANS



GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance
GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance


Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up


The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.

Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom

Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards
Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up - The Big Picture


NOTE ANYTHING ON THIS CHART?

The Big Lie of the Financial Crisis

Wall Street has its own version: Its Big Lie is that banks and investment houses are merely victims of the crash. You see, the entire boom and bust was caused by misguided government policies. It was not irresponsible lending or derivative or excess leverage or misguided compensation packages, but rather long-standing housing policies that were at fault.


Indeed, the arguments these folks make fail to withstand even casual scrutiny.
What caused the financial crisis? The Big Lie goes viral

We Have the Best Economic Analyses That OPEC Can Buy

Oil went up to $147 a barrel in July, 2008. That's what prevented the banks from slowly and safely getting out of their deals, as they had planned. Both sides are covering up for the petrocrats in order to push their self-serving economic agendas.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What you said:

Yup. Cuts from above those high rates would pay for themselves.
Cuts beyond that would not pay for themselves.
I think people keeping their own money is more important than maximizing government revenues.

Cut taxes now!

No dodge there, eh comrade?

Good swerve Bubs, wasn't your original posit though? I guess YOU WILL NEVER BE HONEST

wasn't your original posit though?

What was my original posit? Where?

OH DISHONEST ONE IT'S RIGHT HERE:

"then what's the fucking point of them(TAX CUTS)?

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

AND IT WAS A DIRECT REASON YOU STATED:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

Abso-fucking-lutely.

We should cut taxes today.
We should cut taxes tomorrow.
We should cut taxes next week.
We should cut taxes next month.
Then we should cut taxes some more.

That's my original posit.

Where did I change it? Ever?

What you said:

"then what's the fucking point of them(TAX CUTS)?

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

AND IT WAS A DIRECT REASON YOU STATED:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

Sorry you are a dishonest liar Bubs

"then what's the fucking point of them(TAX CUTS)?

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

Yes, that's the fucking point.

AND IT WAS A DIRECT REASON YOU STATED:

"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

Yes, if you cut from a high enough rate, the cut pays for itself.
That's the point of my statement.

If a cut doesn't pay for itself, if the cut reduces government revenues....

MAKE THE CUT ANYWAY.

The purpose of our economy is not to maximize government revenues.

Clear?