Tax cuts are always a good thing...

[Rustic]

The country is broke no reason to tax it anymore it’s best to cut taxes...

Record Number of U.S. Small-Business Owners Say It’s a Good Time to Expand

the country is not broke. it was designed to run debt.

did you ever bother reading the federalist papers? know anything about how our financial systems were set up.

if the greatest country in the world can't run the government, that's the failure of the majority party and president, isn't it now?



dems may be tax and spend... but rightwingnuts are just cut funds and spend what you don't have.... so whiny little wingers can claim we're broke and the government shouldn't operate except for the military...

that way you don't get told by the federal gubmint that you have to go to school with black people

wackos.

Yeah but paying taxes for the public schools yet having to send your
own children to a private school so they can get an education was worth it.

why would you "have to" send your child to public school?

I didn't agree to bush's war in Iraq or Donald's tax cut... yet4 those things cost me.

grow up.

Bush's war in Iraq became Obama's war in Iraq and you apparently stopped caring. Faux outrage anyone?

And how did a tax cut "cost" you? LOL

who said I stopped caring?

and now it's Donald's war in Iraq.

how about you stick to the point....

which is grow the hell up... taxes cover things we don't always like. I don't like paying for abstinence only programs like baby bush had either. *shrug*

there was no tax cut for me, idiot.... I pay state and local taxes and will now pay taxes on them instead of being able to deduct them.

you should probably know something BEFORE you snicker like an idiot.

I think everyone’s taxes should be cut drastically even yours....

 

[Rustic]

Lol
Designed to run debt?
You stupid fool, debt is always bad no two ways about it you silly little fucker

Well, no not really.

Waste of air. I said tax revenues doubled under Reagan, I didn't just say they went up. You're following alternative facts with a hot air argument that doesn't contradict what I saiad.

More alternative facts. The first cut was in August of 1981 and the government grew revenues by 16% in 1981 and 17% in 1982. Since your data is wrong, I stopped there.

Note you're as I pointed out ignoring economic growth.

For sure I want to cut spending. I'd slash it. Including military. But tax cuts are a good thing regardless as Rustic said. It's not hard to see why if you think about it. Productivity increases because people use less of their energy producing economic value rather than evading taxes

Yep, you are full of shit.

First off, a tax cut in Aug of 1981 is not going to impact 1981, as such 1981 is counted as a 'pre tax cut year".

In 1980 tax revenues were 517 billion. In 1981 they were 599 billion. That is a percent of change of 14%, not 16%. (599-517)/599 = 14%.

You used the wrong denominator. Since we're talking about a tax increase, the correct formula is

(599-517)/517. It's an increase over the 1980 number.

Then in 1982 tax revenues were 618 billion. That is a percent of change of 3%, not 17%.

(618 - 599)/618 = 3%.

The bottom line is that tax revenue increases slowed after both tax cuts.

We both made a mistake on this one. You made the same mistake you did on the first number. I calculated the two year increase rather than the one year increase. Though actually both are in my table, I read the wrong number.

Either way, I said tax revenues grow over time with tax cuts. Reagan cut taxes six months into his term and tax revenues doubled during his Presidency. You didn't contradict my argument

Yes I did use the wrong denominator. Whoops. That is what i get for rushing with excel. Thank you for pointing out my mistake.

I say that tax revenues grow over time, regardless of tax cuts or not. The real question is do they grow faster or slower with tax cuts. I think the numbers show the growth is slowed, not speed up.

Oh, and sorry for being a dick!

Again, I pointed out that tax revenues doubled under Reagan, and that's with big tax cuts six months into his Presidency. I didn't just say revenues increased. The tax cuts weren't the problem. Spending was the problem. Reagan of course wanted the military. That spending was dwarfed by Tip and the Democrats. Reagan called the 3 for 1 deal he made with Tip the worst mistake of his Presidency because obviously Tip wasn't going to deliver, and didn't

They did not quiet double, they went from 599 billion to 909 billion.

Then if you compare it to the next guy to have 8 years in office, Clinton his tax revenues went from 1.15 trillion to 2.03 trillion.

So, during the 8 years under Clinton tax revenues increased at a higher rate than under Reagan. And Clinton did not have any tax cuts.

Also, tax revenue increases were greater the 5 years before the tax cut than the 5 years after.

So, how can you claim that tax cuts make tax revenue increase faster?

Increasing taxes only helps career politicians and deep state people, increased taxes are great to encourage waste fraud and abuse…

 

[Rustic]

Liberals hate that tax increases and government regulations are unpopular and cause them to lose elections.

Let me tell you, small businesses are under assault by tax and spend government every damn conceivable government fiefdom large and small wants a piece of the small business. Recently these government scumbags have enacted taxes that the small business must pay even if they lose money that year, they step in and siphon off a pile of money, they get theirs, screw the business. So pardon me if we embrace Trump's corporate tax cuts, all you liberal government spend-o-holics can piss off.

Tax cuts so the rich can get richer faster and putting it on the Peoples' tab, is what loses elections for the right wing in Midterm elections.

Redistribution is for cowardly pieces of shit...

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Well, no not really.
Yep, you are full of shit.

First off, a tax cut in Aug of 1981 is not going to impact 1981, as such 1981 is counted as a 'pre tax cut year".

In 1980 tax revenues were 517 billion. In 1981 they were 599 billion. That is a percent of change of 14%, not 16%. (599-517)/599 = 14%.

You used the wrong denominator. Since we're talking about a tax increase, the correct formula is

(599-517)/517. It's an increase over the 1980 number.

Then in 1982 tax revenues were 618 billion. That is a percent of change of 3%, not 17%.

(618 - 599)/618 = 3%.

The bottom line is that tax revenue increases slowed after both tax cuts.

We both made a mistake on this one. You made the same mistake you did on the first number. I calculated the two year increase rather than the one year increase. Though actually both are in my table, I read the wrong number.

Either way, I said tax revenues grow over time with tax cuts. Reagan cut taxes six months into his term and tax revenues doubled during his Presidency. You didn't contradict my argument

Yes I did use the wrong denominator. Whoops. That is what i get for rushing with excel. Thank you for pointing out my mistake.

I say that tax revenues grow over time, regardless of tax cuts or not. The real question is do they grow faster or slower with tax cuts. I think the numbers show the growth is slowed, not speed up.

Oh, and sorry for being a dick!

Again, I pointed out that tax revenues doubled under Reagan, and that's with big tax cuts six months into his Presidency. I didn't just say revenues increased. The tax cuts weren't the problem. Spending was the problem. Reagan of course wanted the military. That spending was dwarfed by Tip and the Democrats. Reagan called the 3 for 1 deal he made with Tip the worst mistake of his Presidency because obviously Tip wasn't going to deliver, and didn't

They did not quiet double, they went from 599 billion to 909 billion.

Then if you compare it to the next guy to have 8 years in office, Clinton his tax revenues went from 1.15 trillion to 2.03 trillion.

So, during the 8 years under Clinton tax revenues increased at a higher rate than under Reagan. And Clinton did not have any tax cuts.

Also, tax revenue increases were greater the 5 years before the tax cut than the 5 years after.

So, how can you claim that tax cuts make tax revenue increase faster?

Increasing taxes only helps career politicians and deep state people, increased taxes are great to encourage waste fraud and abuse…

I am not arguing for increased taxes, I am disputing the myth that cutting taxes increases revenue.

 

[Rustic]

Just an FYI...the RWnuts post crazy threads like this repeatedly as a strategy. They want to take over the forum so they can babble unmolested by sane liberals, so they flood the board with nonsense, thinking that enough of it will eventually drive the liberals away in frustration.

I've seen it before.

You know that thing that Democrats do? Accuse others of the exact same things they are actually doing. Good to see you are carrying on with that tradition.

I defy you to show me any thread I've ever posted as nonsensical as this one.

Right on queue, then they deny.
You mean as nonsensical as:
Just an FYI...the RWnuts post crazy threads like this repeatedly as a strategy. They want to take over the forum so they can babble unmolested by sane liberals, so they flood the board with nonsense, thinking that enough of it will eventually drive the liberals away in frustration.

So you honestly believe that OP really believes that there is NO REASON to tax Americans anymore.

Every year taxes should be decreasing for the sake of the economy

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Just an FYI...the RWnuts post crazy threads like this repeatedly as a strategy. They want to take over the forum so they can babble unmolested by sane liberals, so they flood the board with nonsense, thinking that enough of it will eventually drive the liberals away in frustration.

I've seen it before.

You know that thing that Democrats do? Accuse others of the exact same things they are actually doing. Good to see you are carrying on with that tradition.

I defy you to show me any thread I've ever posted as nonsensical as this one.

Right on queue, then they deny.
You mean as nonsensical as:
Just an FYI...the RWnuts post crazy threads like this repeatedly as a strategy. They want to take over the forum so they can babble unmolested by sane liberals, so they flood the board with nonsense, thinking that enough of it will eventually drive the liberals away in frustration.

So you honestly believe that OP really believes that there is NO REASON to tax Americans anymore.

Every year taxes should be decreasing for the sake of the economy

And when we get to zero our revenues will be through the roof!

 

[Rustic]

You used the wrong denominator. Since we're talking about a tax increase, the correct formula is

(599-517)/517. It's an increase over the 1980 number.

We both made a mistake on this one. You made the same mistake you did on the first number. I calculated the two year increase rather than the one year increase. Though actually both are in my table, I read the wrong number.

Either way, I said tax revenues grow over time with tax cuts. Reagan cut taxes six months into his term and tax revenues doubled during his Presidency. You didn't contradict my argument

Yes I did use the wrong denominator. Whoops. That is what i get for rushing with excel. Thank you for pointing out my mistake.

I say that tax revenues grow over time, regardless of tax cuts or not. The real question is do they grow faster or slower with tax cuts. I think the numbers show the growth is slowed, not speed up.

Oh, and sorry for being a dick!

Again, I pointed out that tax revenues doubled under Reagan, and that's with big tax cuts six months into his Presidency. I didn't just say revenues increased. The tax cuts weren't the problem. Spending was the problem. Reagan of course wanted the military. That spending was dwarfed by Tip and the Democrats. Reagan called the 3 for 1 deal he made with Tip the worst mistake of his Presidency because obviously Tip wasn't going to deliver, and didn't

They did not quiet double, they went from 599 billion to 909 billion.

Then if you compare it to the next guy to have 8 years in office, Clinton his tax revenues went from 1.15 trillion to 2.03 trillion.

So, during the 8 years under Clinton tax revenues increased at a higher rate than under Reagan. And Clinton did not have any tax cuts.

Also, tax revenue increases were greater the 5 years before the tax cut than the 5 years after.

So, how can you claim that tax cuts make tax revenue increase faster?

Increasing taxes only helps career politicians and deep state people, increased taxes are great to encourage waste fraud and abuse…

I am not arguing for increased taxes, I am disputing the myth that cutting taxes increases revenue.

cutting taxes increases private sector revenue... I will go out of my way to pay accountants more money to avoid paying the federal government money then just paying a lesser amount to the federal government.

 

[Rustic]

You know that thing that Democrats do? Accuse others of the exact same things they are actually doing. Good to see you are carrying on with that tradition.

I defy you to show me any thread I've ever posted as nonsensical as this one.

Right on queue, then they deny.
You mean as nonsensical as:
Just an FYI...the RWnuts post crazy threads like this repeatedly as a strategy. They want to take over the forum so they can babble unmolested by sane liberals, so they flood the board with nonsense, thinking that enough of it will eventually drive the liberals away in frustration.

So you honestly believe that OP really believes that there is NO REASON to tax Americans anymore.

Every year taxes should be decreasing for the sake of the economy

And when we get to zero our revenues will be through the roof!

A starving, scared federal government is a good thing, They will appreciate things more

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I defy you to show me any thread I've ever posted as nonsensical as this one.

Right on queue, then they deny.
You mean as nonsensical as:
Just an FYI...the RWnuts post crazy threads like this repeatedly as a strategy. They want to take over the forum so they can babble unmolested by sane liberals, so they flood the board with nonsense, thinking that enough of it will eventually drive the liberals away in frustration.

So you honestly believe that OP really believes that there is NO REASON to tax Americans anymore.

Every year taxes should be decreasing for the sake of the economy

And when we get to zero our revenues will be through the roof!

A starving, scared federal government is a good thing, They will appreciate things more

But it is not starving, it is just stealing money from my children and grandchildren. That I have an issue with.

I am one of those odd people that think people should pay for what they are getting and not pass it off on future generations.

But I know not many of you agree with me, you are cool with having your cake and eating it too

 

[kaz]

Reagan was only President for seven years? I did not know that.

Tax Revenue 1981 - 599 billion
Tax Revenue 1988 - 909 billion.

81 to 88 is eight year...81-82-83-84-85-86-87-88

(909-599)/599=percent of change = 52%

Right. That's seven years. Reagan took office in January of 1981. You have to start calculating from 1980 revenue, which was $517 billion. You're not giving Reagan for the increase in 1981.

So by these numbers, Reagan = (909-517)/517 = 76%.

then we have to adjust the Clinton numbers as well. 2.03-1.09/1.09 = 86%. Seems that is still better than Reagan.

Thanks! You're further supporting that tax cuts grow federal revenues over time, they don't reduce them. And that grows the economy, that lower taxes are generating the same or more revenue. Which reduces real deficits

 

[Rustic]

Right on queue, then they deny.
You mean as nonsensical as:
Just an FYI...the RWnuts post crazy threads like this repeatedly as a strategy. They want to take over the forum so they can babble unmolested by sane liberals, so they flood the board with nonsense, thinking that enough of it will eventually drive the liberals away in frustration.

So you honestly believe that OP really believes that there is NO REASON to tax Americans anymore.

Every year taxes should be decreasing for the sake of the economy

And when we get to zero our revenues will be through the roof!

A starving, scared federal government is a good thing, They will appreciate things more

But it is not starving, it is just stealing money from my children and grandchildren. That I have an issue with.

I am one of those odd people that think people should pay for what they are getting and not pass it off on future generations.

But I know not many of you agree with me, you are cool with having your cake and eating it too

The federal government is never accountable for their actions because they are owned by the Career politicians/deep state...
The federal government has one talent waste fraud and abuse… Maybe that’s three? Lol
The fair thing to do would have the federal government bag for funds before they spend anything… And prove their needs for taxes/funding before they ever get it…

 

[william the wie]

One error of fact cutting the SALT and mortgage deduction caps did raise taxes in the blue wall. That will cause the Ds a lot of pain prior to the mid-terms.

 

[kaz]

You used the wrong denominator. Since we're talking about a tax increase, the correct formula is

(599-517)/517. It's an increase over the 1980 number.

We both made a mistake on this one. You made the same mistake you did on the first number. I calculated the two year increase rather than the one year increase. Though actually both are in my table, I read the wrong number.

Either way, I said tax revenues grow over time with tax cuts. Reagan cut taxes six months into his term and tax revenues doubled during his Presidency. You didn't contradict my argument

Yes I did use the wrong denominator. Whoops. That is what i get for rushing with excel. Thank you for pointing out my mistake.

I say that tax revenues grow over time, regardless of tax cuts or not. The real question is do they grow faster or slower with tax cuts. I think the numbers show the growth is slowed, not speed up.

Oh, and sorry for being a dick!

Again, I pointed out that tax revenues doubled under Reagan, and that's with big tax cuts six months into his Presidency. I didn't just say revenues increased. The tax cuts weren't the problem. Spending was the problem. Reagan of course wanted the military. That spending was dwarfed by Tip and the Democrats. Reagan called the 3 for 1 deal he made with Tip the worst mistake of his Presidency because obviously Tip wasn't going to deliver, and didn't

They did not quiet double, they went from 599 billion to 909 billion.

Then if you compare it to the next guy to have 8 years in office, Clinton his tax revenues went from 1.15 trillion to 2.03 trillion.

So, during the 8 years under Clinton tax revenues increased at a higher rate than under Reagan. And Clinton did not have any tax cuts.

Also, tax revenue increases were greater the 5 years before the tax cut than the 5 years after.

So, how can you claim that tax cuts make tax revenue increase faster?

Increasing taxes only helps career politicians and deep state people, increased taxes are great to encourage waste fraud and abuse…

I am not arguing for increased taxes, I am disputing the myth that cutting taxes increases revenue.

It does in real terms, you've been busy proving that

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Reagan was only President for seven years? I did not know that.

Tax Revenue 1981 - 599 billion
Tax Revenue 1988 - 909 billion.

81 to 88 is eight year...81-82-83-84-85-86-87-88

(909-599)/599=percent of change = 52%

Right. That's seven years. Reagan took office in January of 1981. You have to start calculating from 1980 revenue, which was $517 billion. You're not giving Reagan for the increase in 1981.

So by these numbers, Reagan = (909-517)/517 = 76%.

then we have to adjust the Clinton numbers as well. 2.03-1.09/1.09 = 86%. Seems that is still better than Reagan.

Thanks! You're further supporting that tax cuts grow federal revenues over time, they don't reduce them. And that grows the economy, that lower taxes are generating the same or more revenue. Which reduces real deficits

What I have proven is that tax cuts slow the rate at which federal tax revenue grows, which has the result of less money going into the federal coffers than if there had been no tax cuts.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just an FYI...the RWnuts post crazy threads like this repeatedly as a strategy. They want to take over the forum so they can babble unmolested by sane liberals, so they flood the board with nonsense, thinking that enough of it will eventually drive the liberals away in frustration.

I've seen it before.

You know that thing that Democrats do? Accuse others of the exact same things they are actually doing. Good to see you are carrying on with that tradition.

I defy you to show me any thread I've ever posted as nonsensical as this one.

Right on queue, then they deny.
You mean as nonsensical as:
Just an FYI...the RWnuts post crazy threads like this repeatedly as a strategy. They want to take over the forum so they can babble unmolested by sane liberals, so they flood the board with nonsense, thinking that enough of it will eventually drive the liberals away in frustration.

So you honestly believe that OP really believes that there is NO REASON to tax Americans anymore.

Every year taxes should be decreasing for the sake of the economy

And what? Borrow 100% of government spending?

lol, insane

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, no not really.
Yep, you are full of shit.

First off, a tax cut in Aug of 1981 is not going to impact 1981, as such 1981 is counted as a 'pre tax cut year".

In 1980 tax revenues were 517 billion. In 1981 they were 599 billion. That is a percent of change of 14%, not 16%. (599-517)/599 = 14%.

You used the wrong denominator. Since we're talking about a tax increase, the correct formula is

(599-517)/517. It's an increase over the 1980 number.

Then in 1982 tax revenues were 618 billion. That is a percent of change of 3%, not 17%.

(618 - 599)/618 = 3%.

The bottom line is that tax revenue increases slowed after both tax cuts.

We both made a mistake on this one. You made the same mistake you did on the first number. I calculated the two year increase rather than the one year increase. Though actually both are in my table, I read the wrong number.

Either way, I said tax revenues grow over time with tax cuts. Reagan cut taxes six months into his term and tax revenues doubled during his Presidency. You didn't contradict my argument

Yes I did use the wrong denominator. Whoops. That is what i get for rushing with excel. Thank you for pointing out my mistake.

I say that tax revenues grow over time, regardless of tax cuts or not. The real question is do they grow faster or slower with tax cuts. I think the numbers show the growth is slowed, not speed up.

Oh, and sorry for being a dick!

Again, I pointed out that tax revenues doubled under Reagan, and that's with big tax cuts six months into his Presidency. I didn't just say revenues increased. The tax cuts weren't the problem. Spending was the problem. Reagan of course wanted the military. That spending was dwarfed by Tip and the Democrats. Reagan called the 3 for 1 deal he made with Tip the worst mistake of his Presidency because obviously Tip wasn't going to deliver, and didn't

They did not quiet double, they went from 599 billion to 909 billion.

Reagan was only President for seven years? I did not know that.

Then if you compare it to the next guy to have 8 years in office, Clinton his tax revenues went from 1.15 trillion to 2.03 trillion.

So, during the 8 years under Clinton tax revenues increased at a higher rate than under Reagan. And Clinton did not have any tax cuts.

Actually they were similar since you started counting Reagan's presidency at the end of 1981 instead of the beginning. But that supports my point. Reagan cut taxes and yet revenue almost doubled compared to Clinton who raised the highest rates and revenues almost doubled. Increasing taxes did not lead to more revenue. Cutting taxes did not lead to less revenue. And that's in nominal dollars. Real dollars are even better

Also, tax revenue increases were greater the 5 years before the tax cut than the 5 years after.

I already pointed out that was in nominal dollars, not real dollars. The economy grew.

You're right that to balance the budget we have to cut spending. But if we're not going to do that, it's critical we keep growing the economy and we need tax cuts to do that.

Think about a couple things

1) The higher taxes are, the higher percent of effort the rich and corporations put into avoiding taxes, which doesn't grow the economy. The lower they are, the more effort they put into growing the economy

2) Tax increases harm us versus foreign competition. More unemployed = less revenue

So, how can you claim that tax cuts make tax revenue increase faster?

So I claimed that tax cuts increase revenue over time. Reagan cut taxes twice and simplified them (which I also said was critical).

You're arguing that tax revenue increased faster under his successor as if you contradicted what I said ...

You can't cut taxes to grow the economy if you're trying to increase revenues. You're reducing the very thing you're trying to increase.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes I did use the wrong denominator. Whoops. That is what i get for rushing with excel. Thank you for pointing out my mistake.

I say that tax revenues grow over time, regardless of tax cuts or not. The real question is do they grow faster or slower with tax cuts. I think the numbers show the growth is slowed, not speed up.

Oh, and sorry for being a dick!

Again, I pointed out that tax revenues doubled under Reagan, and that's with big tax cuts six months into his Presidency. I didn't just say revenues increased. The tax cuts weren't the problem. Spending was the problem. Reagan of course wanted the military. That spending was dwarfed by Tip and the Democrats. Reagan called the 3 for 1 deal he made with Tip the worst mistake of his Presidency because obviously Tip wasn't going to deliver, and didn't

They did not quiet double, they went from 599 billion to 909 billion.

Then if you compare it to the next guy to have 8 years in office, Clinton his tax revenues went from 1.15 trillion to 2.03 trillion.

So, during the 8 years under Clinton tax revenues increased at a higher rate than under Reagan. And Clinton did not have any tax cuts.

Also, tax revenue increases were greater the 5 years before the tax cut than the 5 years after.

So, how can you claim that tax cuts make tax revenue increase faster?

Increasing taxes only helps career politicians and deep state people, increased taxes are great to encourage waste fraud and abuse…

I am not arguing for increased taxes, I am disputing the myth that cutting taxes increases revenue.

It does in real terms, you've been busy proving that

If taxes are zero, you get no revenues. Therefore it is an indisputable fact that cutting taxes does not always increase revenues.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You know that thing that Democrats do? Accuse others of the exact same things they are actually doing. Good to see you are carrying on with that tradition.

I defy you to show me any thread I've ever posted as nonsensical as this one.

Right on queue, then they deny.
You mean as nonsensical as:
Just an FYI...the RWnuts post crazy threads like this repeatedly as a strategy. They want to take over the forum so they can babble unmolested by sane liberals, so they flood the board with nonsense, thinking that enough of it will eventually drive the liberals away in frustration.

So you honestly believe that OP really believes that there is NO REASON to tax Americans anymore.

Every year taxes should be decreasing for the sake of the economy

And what? Borrow 100% of government spending?

lol, insane

Rustic is a "I want it now and never want to pay for it" kind of guy.

 

[kaz]

Reagan was only President for seven years? I did not know that.

Tax Revenue 1981 - 599 billion
Tax Revenue 1988 - 909 billion.

81 to 88 is eight year...81-82-83-84-85-86-87-88

(909-599)/599=percent of change = 52%

Right. That's seven years. Reagan took office in January of 1981. You have to start calculating from 1980 revenue, which was $517 billion. You're not giving Reagan for the increase in 1981.

So by these numbers, Reagan = (909-517)/517 = 76%.

then we have to adjust the Clinton numbers as well. 2.03-1.09/1.09 = 86%. Seems that is still better than Reagan.

Thanks! You're further supporting that tax cuts grow federal revenues over time, they don't reduce them. And that grows the economy, that lower taxes are generating the same or more revenue. Which reduces real deficits

What I have proven is that tax cuts slow the rate at which federal tax revenue grows, which has the result of less money going into the federal coffers than if there had been no tax cuts.

And you think that Reagan increasing revenue by your numbers 77% versus Clinton's 86% proved that? Seriously?

Now let's talk GDP growth.

1980 2.863
1988 5.253

Reagan GDP growth 83.48%

1992: 6.539
2000: 10.285

Clinton GDP growth, 57.29%

Do you see how higher GDP growth helps manage deficits (assuming you're not going to cut spending)?

 

[kaz]

I defy you to show me any thread I've ever posted as nonsensical as this one.

Right on queue, then they deny.
You mean as nonsensical as:
Just an FYI...the RWnuts post crazy threads like this repeatedly as a strategy. They want to take over the forum so they can babble unmolested by sane liberals, so they flood the board with nonsense, thinking that enough of it will eventually drive the liberals away in frustration.

So you honestly believe that OP really believes that there is NO REASON to tax Americans anymore.

Every year taxes should be decreasing for the sake of the economy

And what? Borrow 100% of government spending?

lol, insane

Rustic is a "I want it now and never want to pay for it" kind of guy.

I think he's with us that he wants to cut spending