Tax Cuts Steal Democracy

[Toddsterpatriot]

I wonder where wages come from?

You do? Well, they don't come from trickle-down, that's your first hint. Wages come out of revenues, not profit. Profit = Tax * (Revenues - Expenses). Wages fall into "Expenses". So as long as your expenses are not greater than revenues, and the tax rate isn't 100%, a business will be profitable so long as there is consumer demand for the product or service that business provides. So the idea of cutting corporate income tax does not result in a shifting of funds from the profit to the expenses, and we can see that in the static wage growth for the majority of workers.

Which is why the economy after Obama raised taxes was so much better than the economy after Reagan cut them in 1983 or Bush cut them in 2003. Durr...

Obama and Bush had the same 8-year GDP growth rate of 1.76%. The difference is that Obama created 11,000,000 net private sector jobs and Bush lost 460,000 net private sector jobs. Also, Obama reduced the deficit from the $1T Bush left it, all the way down to about $400B. Only Obama and Clinton are the last two Presidents from the last 37 years to leave office with a deficit lower than the one they inherited. No Republican can make such a claim. Also, Bush's growth was bolstered by the housing market, which was what eventually crashed the economy. The same housing bubble that Conservatives like to blame on Democrats. Which puts you in quite the pickle; if the subprime bubble is the Democrats' fault, then they get the credit for the growth from that housing bubble Bush enjoyed from 2004-7. Which means you can't credit Bush with the economic growth from that time because you all say the housing bubble that produced said growth is the fault of Democrats. You don't get to take credit for the good news, and pass the bad news off on your political opponents. I mean you can do that, but doing so just makes you look childish.

Correct, I expand it, or start it, because I see the possibility of higher after tax returns.

LOL! And you're working from the assumption that consumer demand will increase because you will it to be so? Give me a freaking break. That's supply-side economic theory, which is just another way to say trickle down, which is just another way to say wealth redistribution to the top.

Why does demand have to increase before? Why can't it increase after?

So that is "supply-side economics", which is what we've been doing since 1980. Again, what you have failed to articulate is how lowering the corporate income tax rate translates to increased consumer spending. You haven't done that because you can't. Basically, what your economic policy boils down to is faith. Which is a shitty thing to base policy on.

Safer, cheaper.....durr.

Not cheaper, much more expensive. To extract coal that way requires a massive, $100M piece of equipment called a "dragline". Also, they take it off mountain tops because the mines have run dry. So the coal that could be cheaply and safely extracted has already been mined.

The market crushed fracking?

Yes, that's why since 2013, about 200 oil and natural gas companies went under with a debt load of $85,000,000,000, or 121 times Solyndra.

Why would fracking be unprofitable? Did the supply increase because of fracking? LOL!

The supply increased so much that the value of natural gas has declined to its lowest level in 20 years. Because of that, all those businesses that got into the shale game did so because of the futures for natural gas. At the time, the futures were far higher than the $2/Mcf natural gas currently goes for. To extract one Mcf of natural gas costs at least $3.50/Mcf because of the production involved. So that's a negative margin. That's why 213 oil and natural gas companies have gone under since 2013, leaving behind $85B in debt.

Yes. All that employment needed for a tiny fraction of energy production.
You're not very good at economics.

The energy production from solar has grown. Since 2005, PVC prices have dropped by more than 50% and solar installations have grown 6,000%.

Right, $12.6 billion in profits, 71,100 employees, $12 billion in dividends paid, over $218 billion in revenues.

Did you see the news this morning? Exxon had to pay a massive fine for thousands of Clean Air Act violations. This, combined with the fact that Exxon knew about climate change in the 70's, yet undertook a sustained campaign to undermine it because if action were taken, profits would decrease. So they're liars, and comparing yourself to them would make you a liar too.

I know, instead of a useful, profitable business, they actually lost money and defaulted on taxpayer loans.Good job!!!

Solyndra = $700M bankruptcy
Oil and Natural Gas since 2013: $85B in total debt from bankruptcies.

If you don't think $700M is less than $85B, then you're stupid.

And you're working from the assumption that consumer demand will increase because you will it to be so?

Is that like liberals assuming consumer demand will increase when you raise taxes on people? DERP!

Again, what you have failed to articulate is how lowering the corporate income tax rate translates to increased consumer spending.

Lowering corporate taxes results in more corporate activity.
You may feel that more corporate buying and more corporate hiring doesn't lead to more consumer earnings and more consumer spending, but that's because you're a liberal idiot. But then I repeat myself.

Yes, that's why since 2013, about 200 oil and natural gas companies went under with a debt load of $85,000,000,000, or 121 times Solyndra.

Capitalists risking their own capital? Just awful.

The supply increased so much that the value of natural gas has declined to its lowest level in 20 years.

The wonders of capitalism. If we let Obama decide how things went, it'd be at a 20 year high.

The energy production from solar has grown.

Absolutely! In 2008, 0.0366% of US production, up to 0.43% in 2015. Amazing!

Did you see the news this morning? Exxon had to pay a massive fine for thousands of Clean Air Act violations.

That's awful!

This, combined with the fact that Exxon knew about climate change in the 70's,

Who didn't know the climate changes, even back in the '70s. DERP!

Solyndra = $700M bankruptcy

Screwing the taxpayers, cool!

Oil and Natural Gas since 2013: $85B in total debt from bankruptcies.

You need to get back to me with actual losses before I start to worry about your claim here.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You think jobs decreased because corps could bring back more money?

According to the Wall Street Journal, that is precisely what happened. 20,000 jobs were lost because of that "tax repatriation".

Great, spell out why the WSJ thought jobs were lost because of repatriation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I know, the lie about redistributing wealth to the wealthy is more obvious when you put it like that.

Don't think you even understand what the word "lie" means. Maybe that's because you're a Russian here on these boards doing Putin's bidding. Trump's book royalties see their tax rate drop from 35% to 15%, which results in revenue drops, which results in expanded deficits, which results in cuts to services the middle class and poor rely on, which results in them spending more out of pocket, taking that demand out of the consumer economy. Meanwhile Trump sees his income increase...is there a requisite increase in demand? No. So all it does is shift the burden to the poor and middle class, while allowing Trump to skate away with more wealth.

Hence, wealth redistribution.

Keep telling yourself that.

Well, you only had 7 years to come up with an Obamacare replacement, and you couldn't. The temper is there, but the policy isn't. Why? Because there is no policy. The GOP has ceased being a party of policy and instead is a party of ideology, facts be damned. Mnuchin was out there yesterday making the claim that tax cuts pay for themselves. Like we haven't heard that bullshit enough since 1980.

People hate it when they get to keep more of their money. Oh, wait, they love it! Never mind.

LOL! Tax cuts increased household debt. So people aren't keeping more of their money from tax cuts, they're spending more because the burdens have shifted onto them.

Don't think you even understand what the word "lie" means

Lie is when you say a tax cut causes the government to seize wealth from the poor and middle class and hand it to the wealthy.
Because that's what "redistribute" means, you silly twat.

Trump's book royalties see their tax rate drop from 35% to 15%, which results in revenue drops, which results in expanded deficits, which results in cuts to services the middle class and poor rely on,

Ohhhh. Tax cuts means the government redistributes less wealth from the wealthy to the poor and middle class.
Thanks for clearing that up.
It makes your original redistribution lie seem pretty blatant now.

LOL! Tax cuts increased household debt.

You have got to be the dumbest fucking liberal on USMB.
Pretend I'm a guy making $40K. Trump cuts my taxes by $1000.
Show me how that increases my household debt.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If they did

But they didn't. So I don't even know why you are insisting on having a debate about hypotheticals and such. Seems like all you can do is continually fall backward on your theory, over and over, while ignoring the real world results of your failed policy ideas and beliefs. Grow up.

If you understood mean and median, you'd understand the weakness of your argument. For instance, the majority of workers don't make the median wage.

Right, the majority of workers make less. Which is the point.

Are Americans who honeymooned in the USSR "on the right"?

Nope. Just the ones who have Russian hookers pee on them.

think Putin should pull his troops out of Ukraine.
Does that mean I'm not on the right? Or that I'm not Russian?

Do you, though? It's easy for you to say that on the message board, but when Obama proposed sanctions on Russia for invading the Ukraine, the right-wing opposed them and Trump's own campaign folks (Manafort, Page) lobbied against them.

So you say you oppose Putin, yet you oppose the measures meant to punish him, while complaining about him. Which, again, would make your argument masturbatory.

But they didn't.

Do you know what a fucking hypothetical is?
Let's try smaller numbers, like your IQ.

So if the median wage is currently $950 a week and everybody making $960 or more gets a 20% raise, what happens to the median wage? What happens to the average wage? Better?

Right, the majority of workers make less. Which is the point.

The majority of workers make less than the median?
Be more specific, what percentage of workers make less than the median?

 

[The Derp]

Do you know what a fucking hypothetical is?

Yes. It's what morons retreat to when they have no actual facts to support them.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you know what a fucking hypothetical is?

Yes. It's what morons retreat to when they have no actual facts to support them.

But enough about you and your total math failure.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

WASHINGTON -- The 15 companies that benefited the most from a 2004 tax break for the return of their overseas profits cut more than 20,000 net jobs and decreased the pace of their research spending.

Here's another great link, further underscoring the poor results of tax repatriation.

always arguing for pure stupidity aren't you?? Should we raise cost of repatriating corporate money to boost our economy?? Or, why not just make it illegal since it will lead to unemployment and less research spending??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Conservatives still have no replacement plan. They have no plan to "grow" the economy. They have no plans at all. Confirming that which we all knew; that Conservatism is a zombie ideology.

actually the conservative plan is Republican capitalism. China just switched to it and instantly eliminated 40% of the planets poverty. Ever heard of North/South Korea. Cuba/Florida. East/West Germany?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

[ Conservatism is a zombie ideology.

so our Founders were zombies and Marx was a genius despite killing 120 million??

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If they did

But they didn't. So I don't even know why you are insisting on having a debate about hypotheticals and such. Seems like all you can do is continually fall backward on your theory, over and over, while ignoring the real world results of your failed policy ideas and beliefs. Grow up.

If you understood mean and median, you'd understand the weakness of your argument. For instance, the majority of workers don't make the median wage.

Right, the majority of workers make less. Which is the point.

Are Americans who honeymooned in the USSR "on the right"?

Nope. Just the ones who have Russian hookers pee on them.

think Putin should pull his troops out of Ukraine.
Does that mean I'm not on the right? Or that I'm not Russian?

Do you, though? It's easy for you to say that on the message board, but when Obama proposed sanctions on Russia for invading the Ukraine, the right-wing opposed them and Trump's own campaign folks (Manafort, Page) lobbied against them.

So you say you oppose Putin, yet you oppose the measures meant to punish him, while complaining about him. Which, again, would make your argument masturbatory.

I think Putin should pull his troops out of Ukraine.

Do you, though? It's easy for you to say that on the message board

Are you saying that Russians who post on message boards can be critical of Russia?
That's weird.

So you say you oppose Putin, yet you oppose the measures meant to punish him

Where did I say I opposed anything? Link?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because I can do it better, cheaper and more profitably than my competitors.

So then why do you need a tax cut to do that? If you're saying you can do it better and cheaper, why do you need more money? That is cognitive dissonance, dude. You are saying you can do it better and cheaper, but only if it's not cheaper, because you need more funds to do it. You see how stupidly masturbatory your arguments are? It's like the intellectual equivalent of a monkey playing with itself in the corner of its pen at the zoo. You chase your own dumb tail and stand on flawed ideology because you either are being forced to do so, or because you're too much of an egotist to admit otherwise. Which I get...if I was faced with having to reconcile the flawed core of my belief system, I'd get whiny, shrill, and defensive too. Maybe also pretend to be obtuse. Get over yourself.

Of course not, you expand because your after tax profit just jumped from $650,000 to $850,000.

No, you expand if your revenues increase, not your profits. You can increase your profits without increasing your revenues. You do that by lowering your expenses which means less jobs, not more. But the increase in profits do not translate to increase consumer demand. That is satisfied by wages, not after-tax profit for corporate non-persons.

Or try to go with a 30% boost in profit.

As I said above, you can certainly boost your profits without boosting revenues. But the bank is going to see through those tricks pretty quickly when they evaluate your books and find that you haven't increased revenues (aka demand) for the product or service you produce, you've just reduced your expenses. But if reducing your expenses doesn't increase revenues, then you're not accomplishing anything other than wealth redistribution to the top. You condescend to me about business, yet it appears you know less than nothing about business, if that's even possible.

It looks like you're wrong, yet again. Now think about the future increases when employers expand hiring and raise wages to take advantage of their lower corporate rate.

Ummm...so that first chart is all employees, not the middle and lower classes by themselves. Nor does the chart specify just hourly workers. Instead, the chart says it's the average hourly *earnings*, which is different from the average hourly *wage*. Of course the chart shows what it's showing because it's skewed at the top thanks to the massive increases in CEO-to-salaried worker pay. Remove those who derive their income from non-salaried means (deferred income, pass-thrus, royalties, etc.), and what you get is the weekly median wage static growth.

Well, if you ignore economic growth in 1983 and in 2003, you start to think Obama's historically weak economic growth is the best we can do.

So what happened in 1983? Two very important things; The Fed lowered its interest rate which increased borrowing capacity, and Congress increased spending by $32B. Did you see my household debt chart? What happened to average household debt in 1983? Why it shoots upward. How could that be the case? Lower interest rates made it easier for people to borrow, thus going into debt. For 2003, the growth is attributed 100% to the start of the housing bubble. The same housing bubble you blame on Democrats, yet credit Bush for the growth. So you're trying to have it both ways. You want to blame Democrats for the economic collapse that resulted from the housing bubble which was the thing keeping the economy growing. 2003 was when subprime mortgages started being issued en masse. 2004's growth reflects that. There's also this from Fox News, from Bush on the campaign trail in early 2004:

Touting his tax cuts as the economy's savior — and pointing to the strong housing market as proof — Bush said "more people own their own home now than ever." More than 50 percent of minorities owned their own homes in the last three months of 2003 for the first time ever, the president said.

So right there, you have Bush saying his tax cuts were the reason for the strong housing market. The same housing market that would fall apart just three years later, that you blame on Democrats.

It looks like you're wrong, yet again. Now think about the future increases when employers expand hiring and raise wages to take advantage of their lower corporate rate.

No business will expand if there is no demand. By increasing after-tax profits for corporations, you do nothing to increase consumer demand. If anything, you hamstring it because the funds used to pay for the tax cuts come out of health care and education, forcing those in the middle and lower class to go into debt and spend money out of pocket on things they would (and should) otherwise be spending in the consumer market. That's why health care is nearly 20% of our economy...for specifically that reason.

So what happened in 1983? Two very important things; The Fed lowered its interest rate which increased borrowing capacity, and Congress increased spending by $32B.

Looks like they actually raised rates in 1983. Were you lying, or just stupid.
Looks like the Fed Funds rate was above 8% the entire year. And growth still topped 9%.

Obama had 7 years where the Fed Funds rate was below 25 basis points and compared to Reagan, his economy totally sucked ass.

The same housing bubble you blame on Democrats, yet credit Bush for the growth.

The Democrat idea to push people into houses they couldn't afford was bad, even if some Republicans went along for the ride.


No business will expand if there is no demand. By increasing after-tax profits for corporations, you do nothing to increase consumer demand.

You pass a big tax cut, you know demand will increase.
Well, people who understand economics know it will increase, you'll claim it causes household debt. LOL!

If anything, you hamstring it because the funds used to pay for the tax cuts come out of health care and education,

You be sure to post proof that healthcare and education spending were cut.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's so weird, we cut everyone's rates and the rich pay a bigger share.

Yes, because you reduced the tax liability for 50% of workers to $0 because you maintain tax cuts puts more money in the hands of people, whom you theorize will spend it in the consumer economy. Only they don't. They use it to pay for services that cost more now because the funds used to pay for them have been cut thanks to the revenue cuts, thanks to the tax cuts. You know this, of course. Everyone knows this. You are choosing to be obtuse for some reason. I think that reason is purely ego-centric. Yes, I do think you are that petty a person.

If he sold his shares, under the current structure, he'd pay about $12 billion.
He prefers to give the US Treasury ZERO.

You don't know what he fucken' prefers because you don't even understand what it is we are talking about. That's why your posts have since become less articulate. You're getting to the end of your script, and lack the mental capacity to build a case beyond that which you have been told to make.

He pays a higher rate.

No he doesn't. Most of his income is not taxed as salaries are. Most (if not all) of his income comes via pass-thrus and other gimmicks. I don't think Buffet even has a salary.

Yes, because you reduced the tax liability for 50% of workers to $0

Tax cuts redistribute wealth to the wealthy by cutting taxes on the bottom half to zero. Bastards! DERP!

You don't know what he fucken' prefers

He could pay over 10 billion. He pays basically zero.

It's obvious he prefers to not pay taxes.

 

[The Derp]

But enough about you and your total math failure.

So I've written another one-act play entitled Toddsterpatriot is a Flaming Douche, starring Toddsterpatriot.

Act One

You: Trickle down works!

Normal people: No, it doesn't.

You: Well, in theory it works

Normal people: That's nice, but theory doesn't pay the bills.

You: <Barnyard noises>

Fin

 

[The Derp]

always arguing for pure stupidity aren't you?? Should we raise cost of repatriating corporate money to boost our economy?? Or, why not just make it illegal since it will lead to unemployment and less research spending??

Your argument was that cutting corporate taxes somehow translates to growth. When confronted with reality, you become screechy and your posts turn into hysterics. We tried repatriating corporate income in 2004 at a rate below what Trump is proposing today. The result of that re-patriation? Job loss.

So you argue in theory, and I argue in fact.

 

[The Derp]

actually the conservative plan is Republican capitalism. China just switched to it and instantly eliminated 40% of the planets poverty. Ever heard of North/South Korea. Cuba/Florida. East/West Germany?

Russian Active Measure.

 

[The Derp]

so our Founders were zombies and Marx was a genius despite killing 120 million??

It's been 37 years, when is the trickle-down supposed to start?

 

[The Derp]

I think Putin should pull his troops out of Ukraine.

Well, that's certainly a different tune than the right was singing just this past year. Trump clearly has no strategy to deal with Russia because Putin owns Trump. That Russian pee-pee video is how Putin has Trump. Weird isn't it, that two workers for Trump's campaign lobbied against sanctions on Russia for the Ukraine invasion? What's that all about?

Are you saying that Russians who post on message boards can be critical of Russia?

I'm saying with Russian Active Measures, there's no way to know for sure.

Where did I say I opposed anything? Link?

Well, Trump does. And you're here defending Trump. So how would Trump get Putin out of the Ukraine when Putin has a video of Trump getting peed on by Russian hookers?

 

[The Derp]

Looks like they actually raised rates in 1983.

Yes, that is correct. However, the rates in 1983 were far below the rates in 1982. So the cut to interest rates happened throughout 1982, leading to lower borrowing rates in 1983. So fine.

Looks like the Fed Funds rate was above 8% the entire year. And growth still topped 9%.

The GDP growth rate in 1983 was not 9%. So I don't know what numbers you're trying to wiggle in here. You do this constantly, I find...you make generalized, vague statements then try to shift the parameters later on to retroactively make them work. Tsk tsk. I see through it. Are you trying to apply one quarter of 9% growth to the entire year? Because the below chart never shows GDP growth surpassing 4.5%

Obama had 7 years where the Fed Funds rate was below 25 basis points and compared to Reagan, his economy totally sucked ass.

That's because Obama didn't deficit spend like Reagan did. Reagan tripled the debt and doubled the deficit. Obama cut the deficit by 60%. So all you're doing is making the case that deficit spending is good for the economy.

The Democrat idea to push people into houses they couldn't afford was bad, even if some Republicans went along for the ride.

So we are to believe that Conservatives are just these helpless snowflakes who can't come up with ideas of their own, so they just borrow from everyone else? Nah. Conservatives took deliberate actions from 2003-4 to create a housing bubble. The reason is because the growth from 2001-3 was the worst in 80 years. So Bush and the Conservatives hastily created a housing bubble by:

A) Removing leveraging restrictions for banks
B) Invoking an OCC rule to wipe out state protections against predatory lending
C) Regulators ceased enforcement of lending standards beginning in 2004
D) Letting the industry "police itself"
E) Repeatedly denying a housing bubble was occurring
F) Forcing GSE's to resume purchasing risky subprimes that they had been banned from purchasing since 2000 after Clinton's HUD institute that rule

All of that (and more) was done in the service of tax cuts. Because the economy was a flaming pile of shit for Bush's first three years, despite the fact that Bush and the Conservatives promised the Bush Tax Cuts would be this wonderful thing, Conservatives had to give the impression the economy was growing, otherwise they'd pay a price for it in the 2004 election. By inflating a housing bubble, Bush could give the impression the economy was growing when it really wasn't, thus taking the economy off the table as an election issue.

3 years later, that housing bubble would pop.

You pass a big tax cut, you know demand will increase.

How? Cutting corporate tax rate does not result in increased consumer demand. Never has, never will.

Well, people who understand economics know it will increase, you'll claim it causes household debt. LOL!

First of all, that is what the facts show. That as taxes were cut household debt skyrocketed:

These are called facts. Which are things you seem to be allergic to.

 

[The Derp]

Tax cuts redistribute wealth to the wealthy by cutting taxes on the bottom half to zero. Bastards! DERP!

So you don't understand math. That's fine. When you pull revenue from one area (tax cuts) you have to make it up by increasing revenues in other areas or cutting spending in order to balance the budget. Never mind that the initial argument for tax cuts was that they would produce so much growth, we;d be awash in revenues which means no spending cuts...but whatever...not the first lie Conservatives have told and won't be the last. So what spending is cut (because we know Conservatives never raise taxes)? Education and health care. This happens mostly at the State and Local level as those both rely on federal funds in order to maintain their budgets. That's how you can tell if a state is a "taker" state. If it is using more federal revenues to subsidize low tax rates, that is quite literally using welfare to pay for tax cuts. Which would make you the biggest welfare queen there is.

He could pay over 10 billion. He pays basically zero.It's obvious he prefers to not pay taxes.

He could? How so? If his income is taxed at a lower rate, how is that possible?

 

[sakinago]

Looks like they actually raised rates in 1983.

Yes, that is correct. However, the rates in 1983 were far below the rates in 1982. So the cut to interest rates happened throughout 1982, leading to lower borrowing rates in 1983. So fine.

Looks like the Fed Funds rate was above 8% the entire year. And growth still topped 9%.

The GDP growth rate in 1983 was not 9%. So I don't know what numbers you're trying to wiggle in here. You do this constantly, I find...you make generalized, vague statements then try to shift the parameters later on to retroactively make them work. Tsk tsk. I see through it. Are you trying to apply one quarter of 9% growth to the entire year? Because the below chart never shows GDP growth surpassing 4.5%

Obama had 7 years where the Fed Funds rate was below 25 basis points and compared to Reagan, his economy totally sucked ass.

That's because Obama didn't deficit spend like Reagan did. Reagan tripled the debt and doubled the deficit. Obama cut the deficit by 60%. So all you're doing is making the case that deficit spending is good for the economy.

The Democrat idea to push people into houses they couldn't afford was bad, even if some Republicans went along for the ride.

So we are to believe that Conservatives are just these helpless snowflakes who can't come up with ideas of their own, so they just borrow from everyone else? Nah. Conservatives took deliberate actions from 2003-4 to create a housing bubble. The reason is because the growth from 2001-3 was the worst in 80 years. So Bush and the Conservatives hastily created a housing bubble by:

A) Removing leveraging restrictions for banks
B) Invoking an OCC rule to wipe out state protections against predatory lending
C) Regulators ceased enforcement of lending standards beginning in 2004
D) Letting the industry "police itself"
E) Repeatedly denying a housing bubble was occurring
F) Forcing GSE's to resume purchasing risky subprimes that they had been banned from purchasing since 2000 after Clinton's HUD institute that rule

All of that (and more) was done in the service of tax cuts. Because the economy was a flaming pile of shit for Bush's first three years, despite the fact that Bush and the Conservatives promised the Bush Tax Cuts would be this wonderful thing, Conservatives had to give the impression the economy was growing, otherwise they'd pay a price for it in the 2004 election. By inflating a housing bubble, Bush could give the impression the economy was growing when it really wasn't, thus taking the economy off the table as an election issue.

3 years later, that housing bubble would pop.

You pass a big tax cut, you know demand will increase.

How? Cutting corporate tax rate does not result in increased consumer demand. Never has, never will.

Well, people who understand economics know it will increase, you'll claim it causes household debt. LOL!

First of all, that is what the facts show. That as taxes were cut household debt skyrocketed:

These are called facts. Which are things you seem to be allergic to.

Ok I found your source for you're graphs. From this website.
Social Economics Blog: Articles
Their numbers do not match neither BEAs numbers (that they cite), nor the world banks numbers.

As seen here.
United States GDP Annual Growth Rate | 1948-2017 | Data | Chart | Calendar

That being said, your graph shows a very high jump in growth right after JFK was elected 1961, and another after 1964. Two things happens during that time that gave us that huge spike. The JFK tax cut from a maximum rate of 91%, to 65%. Then the LBJ Revenue act of 1964.