Tax Cuts Steal Democracy

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I never made any economic argument for tax cuts did I?

So if there is no economic argument for them, why even do them at all?

I gave you a reason , actually , I gave you THE best reason

let people keep more of their own money

is that not a good enough reason?

Yes and since the people who earned the money then get to spend their hard earned money they spend it more efficiently than Soviet monopolist bureaucrats and the economy grows far more

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

New York cut business taxes because they don't increase economic activity? Are you sure?

Are you? Show me the money!

So maybe New York State should raise business taxes to attract business to the state?? This is actually what the brain-dead liberal would have us believe .

He would also have us believe that when Ireland dropped its corporate rate to 11% that most of the worlds major corporations didn't move there in whole or in part.

 

[The Derp]

Yes and since the people who earned the money then get to spend their hard earned money they spend it more efficiently than Soviet monopolist bureaucrats and the economy grows far more

Too bad when we "let people keep more of what they earned" from the Bush Tax Cuts, household debt skyrocketed. Which meant people didn't keep more of what they earned and instead, went into debt. So once again, the facts undermine your ideology:

Total HH debt as a % of GDP:

So the Bush Tax Cuts started in 2001. So what happened to the lines in the charts above? Well, savings declined and debt rose. Tax cuts do nothing other than create deficits and plunge consumers into debt.

 

[The Derp]

So maybe New York State

Wait, wait, wait. YOU SAID that New York State saw increased economic activity due to the tax cuts. Where is the proof of this? You tried to establish something as fact but you provided nothing to support your argument other than innuendo.

Oh and BTW - the New York State Legislature is controlled by Republicans, not Democrats.

 

[The Derp]

let people keep more of their own money

Which does what? Because when Reagan cut taxes and when Bush the Dumber cut taxes, household debt skyrocketed. So people didn't "keep more of what they earned". Quite the opposite. They went into debt.

 

[The Derp]

SPENDING causes deficits

No, tax cuts do. Spending creates revenues and revenues reduce deficits.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So maybe New York State

Wait, wait, wait. YOU SAID that New York State saw increased economic activity due to the tax cuts. Where is the proof of this? You tried to establish something as fact but you provided nothing to support your argument other than innuendo.

Oh and BTW - the New York State Legislature is controlled by Republicans, not Democrats.

so do you want NYS to increase business taxes to attract businesses???
do you want to tell Ireland not to believe its lying eyes and the businesses that moved in when they dropped their taxes to 11% did not really move in?? See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

SPENDING causes deficits

No, tax cuts do. Spending creates revenues and revenues reduce deficits.

Do you want Washington to increase business tax to attract business to this country???

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

keep

SPENDING causes deficits

No, tax cuts do. Spending creates revenues and revenues reduce deficits.

Democrats cause deficits by not making them illegal

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

let people keep more of their own money

Which does what? Because when Reagan cut taxes and when Bush the Dumber cut taxes, household debt skyrocketed. So people didn't "keep more of what they earned". Quite the opposite. They went into debt.

so the libNazi wants to tax people to help them not get into more debt??

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes and since the people who earned the money then get to spend their hard earned money they spend it more efficiently than Soviet monopolist bureaucrats and the economy grows far more

Too bad when we "let people keep more of what they earned" from the Bush Tax Cuts, household debt skyrocketed. Which meant people didn't keep more of what they earned and instead, went into debt. So once again, the facts undermine your ideology:

Total HH debt as a % of GDP:

So the Bush Tax Cuts started in 2001. So what happened to the lines in the charts above? Well, savings declined and debt rose. Tax cuts do nothing other than create deficits and plunge consumers into debt.

Too bad when we "let people keep more of what they earned" from the Bush Tax Cuts, household debt skyrocketed.

Why does a tax cut lead you to save less?
Why does a tax cut lead you to borrow more?
Walk through the steps for me.

 

[Wyatt earp]

No what happened in Kansas is expected and the extreme.

At the time, Brownback claimed the tax cuts would be "a shot of adrenaline into the Kansas economy" and "“My focus is to create a red-state model that allows the Republican ticket to say, ‘See, we’ve got a different way, and it works.’ ”"

Mitch McConnell echoed that rhetoric in 2012, saying "This is exactly the sort of thing we (Republicans) want to do here, in Washington, but can’t, at least for now.”"

So when you say what they did in Kansas was "extreme", you're not actually correct. What they did in Kansas was what the mainstream Conservatives and Republican Party wants to do nationally, by their own admission. So let's see how Kansas did after 4 years of Brownback tax cuts:

GDP growth below all its neighbors
Job growth below the national average
GDP growth below the national average
Business creation below the national average
The erasing of a $1B surplus into massive deficits
Public school closures due to lack of funding
Increased sales and excise taxes
Increased tuition for public colleges & universities
Raiding of the state highway fund
Raiding of the welfare block grant
Two credit downgrades
49th in wage growth
The only state to see an increase in its uninsured rate post-ACA

This is the Conservative agenda and what we can expect if the "extreme" plan is the one Conservatives want for the nation.

You idiot you are talking fucking Kansas, what part dont you get in your head?


.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Too bad when we "let people keep more of what they earned" from the Bush Tax Cuts, .

You are stupidly trying to use the bush tax cuts as if they were a scientific experiment with all other variables held constant. Liberals are too stupid to understand science. They look at East/West Germany and conclude we should emulate East Germany!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So maybe New York State

Wait, wait, wait. YOU SAID that New York State saw increased economic activity due to the tax cuts. Where is the proof of this? You tried to establish something as fact but you provided nothing to support your argument other than innuendo.

Oh and BTW - the New York State Legislature is controlled by Republicans, not Democrats.

Oh and BTW - the New York State Legislature is controlled by Republicans, not Democrats.

Wrong!

New York State Legislature - Wikipedia

 

[Wyatt earp]

Yes and since the people who earned the money then get to spend their hard earned money they spend it more efficiently than Soviet monopolist bureaucrats and the economy grows far more

Too bad when we "let people keep more of what they earned" from the Bush Tax Cuts, household debt skyrocketed. Which meant people didn't keep more of what they earned and instead, went into debt. So once again, the facts undermine your ideology:

Total HH debt as a % of GDP:

So the Bush Tax Cuts started in 2001. So what happened to the lines in the charts above? Well, savings declined and debt rose. Tax cuts do nothing other than create deficits and plunge consumers into debt.

Only a god damn piece of shit liberal, would make that argument..


"you don't know how to spend your money we know how to spend your money better then you"

 

[The Derp]

Hillary's "reset" and Obama's flexibility were failures. Good to know.

That's the tragic flaw of Democrats; they believe in the inherent goodness of people. Spend one day on these boards reading Conservative posts and they would probably change that thinking immediately. It was a risk to trust Putin to keep Assad in check. A risk that failed. Now did it fail in the way the Iraq War and broader War on Turr failed? No. The consequences of Obama's policy failure are minimal; we are in no better or worse shape because of them. But to his credit, Obama and Hillary did take a hard line with Russia following their invasion of the Ukraine, which is why there were sanctions on Russia that Obama and Hillary placed. Sanctions Conservatives opposed and lobbied against (specifically Trump campaign official Manafort).

Ukraine begs to differ.

Ukraine is halfway around the world. Russia does not pose a military threat to us. Their army is not going to establish a beachhead in Santa Monica. The threats Russia poses are cyber. The threats that really anyone poses are cyber these days. While we spend billions on planes that can't fly in the rain, or ships that sink when they go in the water, Russia spends a tiny fraction of that on a handful of skilled operatives to wreak havoc on a target's digital infrastructure. While (possibly) not responsible for the famous Sony hack, that tactic is one Russia uses against its opponents. They are fighting 21st century warfare, and you all have us stuck in an 18th century mindset.

I'm glad we'll be done with stupid claims like that.

Climate Change is the direct cause of the Syrian Civil War. Here's how; a drought that started in 2006 in the basins and farmlands in Syria forced millions of Syrian farmers to move from the country to the cities. The cities lacked the infrastructure and employment in order to handle that mass migration. Deteriorating conditions and food and water shortages led to the Arab Spring in Syria, with Syrians peacefully demonstrating in favor of anything to help them. Rather than hearing their concerns and ptting those people to work rebuilding the infrastructure, Assad took their Arab Spring protests as rebellious dissent (which strongmen do when their authority is challenged or shortcomings are exposed) which led to him redeploying forces in those cities from areas like the border with Iraq. That absence of Syrian presence along (mostly) the Iraqi border is how all those former Ba'athists got into Syria after Malaki ethnically cleansed them from Baghdad. Since there was a vacuum of power in the border regions and rural areas, ISIS had no problem establishing itself as the authority because Assad had all his troops attacking his own people. So those Ba'athists set up shop in the border regions of Iraq, got funding from rich Saudis, and then got weapons dropped by the terrified New Iraqi Army Bush the Dumber spent $30B and 8 years arming and training.

I simply show that 12 million of your aggregate total was from a race with no Republicans.

And why was that the case? Because Republicans suck and California knows it.

 

[The Derp]

START-UP NY offers new and expanding businesses the opportunity to operate tax-free for 10 years on or near eligible university or college campuses in New York State.

So...curious as to why you kept this part in? What is the reasoning behind NY offering these incentives to businesses on or near eligible university or college campuses? What's that all about?

 

[The Derp]

Democrats cause deficits because they refuse to make them illegal.

There was a surplus that Conservatives turned into four record deficits. So save your deficit posturing.

 

[The Derp]

New York State Legislature - Wikipedia

When you deal with uninformed people, you must have patience.

Try reading for once.

 

[The Derp]

Only a god damn piece of shit liberal, would make that argument..

Would make an argument using facts? Because that's all I did. You say "letting people keep more of what they earned" is a good thing. Yet, all the economic data says the opposite. So are we to believe you, or are we to believe facts?