The American Resurgence

[buckeye45_73]

the economy was growing but very weak (you guys said we couldn't get more tthan 2% growth any more)
Trump promises 4% growth. Economists say no way.


As for tax cuts, it's gonna be a deficit short term (1-2 years) but it will be greater 2/3+ years....The corporate ones are really gonna help our companies compete against othere here and abroad.....creating jobs and wealth for americans.

Pie in the sky numbers that cannot be accurately predicted, yes.

no, it happens every time taxes are lowered

 

[g5000]

I'm sure that there are 4 billion dollars of federal spending that can be repurposed away from its unconstitutional task and spent reducing the debt.

That 4 billion will put a huge dent in the trillion dollar deficit!

 

[JakeStarkey]

You may believe that, bucky, but you can't prove it.

 

[g5000]

Well. The problem with the income tax is that the assumption is made that the federal government owns us, controls us, controls 100% of our income, and sets the terms for which we may keep a certain percentage if we obey their rules and make ourselves vulnerable to everything it does.

That doesnt tell me why you think they should only tax the ambitious.

Why do you think only families making over 150,000 are ambitious?

Why do you assume a family making over 150,000 is ambitious?

What would be a proper way to describe them? Since the most irrelevant part of my post is so important and all

Why not just use the dollar amount and not attach an adjective to them.

Ambitious is quicker than saying "those that make 150,000 dollars or more"
Ambitious seems to work just fine. Until some semantic asshole wants to break down a post letter by letter

Poor people working three jobs aren't ambitious. They are just lazy.

 

[g5000]

and you cared under Obama when?? oh never

show me the last time tax cuts didn't grow the economy over the next 5-10 years

That is easy.

Tax cuts always cost the country revenue.

The 10 years before the first Bush II tax cut tax revenue increased an average of 6.61% per year.
The 10 years after the first Bush II tax cut tax revenue increased by an average of 1.87%.

Which of those numbers seem better to you?

you care to provide a link for those numbers?

Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 - Tax Foundation

Would you like me to do the math for you also?

You realize in those last 10 years you had 9/11 which caused a recession and the housing market collapsed due to affirmative action housing (aka lending to people who cant pay).

The ten years before Reagan tax cuts tax revenue grew at a rate of 12.41%, the ten years after them it was 5.68%

But I am sure you have an excuse for that as well.

Look, man. If we lower income taxes to zero, we will have infinity revenues! Everybody knows that!

Economy! Economy!

 

[buckeye45_73]

That is easy.

Tax cuts always cost the country revenue.

The 10 years before the first Bush II tax cut tax revenue increased an average of 6.61% per year.
The 10 years after the first Bush II tax cut tax revenue increased by an average of 1.87%.

Which of those numbers seem better to you?

you care to provide a link for those numbers?

Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 - Tax Foundation

Would you like me to do the math for you also?

You realize in those last 10 years you had 9/11 which caused a recession and the housing market collapsed due to affirmative action housing (aka lending to people who cant pay).

The ten years before Reagan tax cuts tax revenue grew at a rate of 12.41%, the ten years after them it was 5.68%

But I am sure you have an excuse for that as well.

Look, man. If we lower income taxes to zero, we will have infinity revenues! Everybody knows that!

Economy! Economy!

Un, no one thinks that....i'd love to eliminate the income tax....it's commie idea that is horrible. but raising it to 100% doesn't make it so you'll get more taxes......either

 

[g5000]

you care to provide a link for those numbers?

Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 - Tax Foundation

Would you like me to do the math for you also?

You realize in those last 10 years you had 9/11 which caused a recession and the housing market collapsed due to affirmative action housing (aka lending to people who cant pay).

The ten years before Reagan tax cuts tax revenue grew at a rate of 12.41%, the ten years after them it was 5.68%

But I am sure you have an excuse for that as well.

Look, man. If we lower income taxes to zero, we will have infinity revenues! Everybody knows that!

Economy! Economy!

Un, no one thinks that....i'd love to eliminate the income tax....it's commie idea that is horrible. but raising it to 100% doesn't make it so you'll get more taxes......either

Ah. Someone who gets it.

You can't keep lowering taxes and believe you will keep getting more revenues. And vice versa.

There is a happy medium.

There are a metric ton of morons who are only capable of screaming "less taxes!" or "tax the rich more!". Stupid little bumper sticker intellects.

I ignore both.

Well...sometimes I make fun of them.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

I'm not a Republican son, sorry but your feminine intuition seems to have let you down there.

Not a Republican? So you cross-dress mentally as the mood moves you? How brave of you to take such a steadfast position! I'm far, far too old to be your son, fool, and your phobic gender ad hominem is very STUPID & INFANTILE!!

Anger reveals lack of any real intellectual debate skills.

How can you evaluate my debate skills if you bloody well fail to engage, you damn fraud! You had the chance but ran away like a frightened child. You wrote the following, to which I responded, and instead of responding to the content of the post, you dodged it and went running to a Mod to get my post deleted. In any case, it's not a proper debate you have any intent to have based on your initial response when you piggy backed my post to another which was;

As a Lib do you even understand your own avatar?

My response obviously cut deep, pointing DIRECTLY to the errors of your insipid response and obvious foolish assumptions.

Also, why were you posting OFF THE DAMN TOPIC I ADDRESSED? Did you forget that is outside of the RULES also as you "reminded" me, hypocrite!

 

[g5000]

I can show you where revenues increased after a tax increase. No...really!

Look at the 90s.

"Why was this not on Fox News?!?"

 

[buckeye45_73]

Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 - Tax Foundation

Would you like me to do the math for you also?

You realize in those last 10 years you had 9/11 which caused a recession and the housing market collapsed due to affirmative action housing (aka lending to people who cant pay).

The ten years before Reagan tax cuts tax revenue grew at a rate of 12.41%, the ten years after them it was 5.68%

But I am sure you have an excuse for that as well.

Look, man. If we lower income taxes to zero, we will have infinity revenues! Everybody knows that!

Economy! Economy!

Un, no one thinks that....i'd love to eliminate the income tax....it's commie idea that is horrible. but raising it to 100% doesn't make it so you'll get more taxes......either

Ah. Someone who gets it.

You can't keep lowering taxes and believe you will keep getting more revenues. And vice versa.

There is a happy medium.

There are a metric ton of morons who are only capable of screaming "less taxes!" or "tax the rich more!". Stupid little bumper sticker intellects.

I ignore both.

Well...sometimes I make fun of them.

I agree...….there is a limit where you get the max......but changing tax laws is like deductions, it's used as a way to manipulate the economy. We need to end the income tax and go for a national sales tax.

 

[buckeye45_73]

I can show you where revenues increased after a tax increase. No...really!

Look at the 90s.

"Why was this not on Fox News?!?"

Well the economy doesn't live in a vaccum so other things due influence it......One in the 90s silicon valley exploded.....Clintons tax increase hurt small businesses more than large ones (large ones can afford to pay for this stuff....which is why big business and big government are allies not enemies), but with silicon valley it pushed the economy......and we didn't even have net neutrality...…I have no idea how that happened (/sarcasm)

 

[g5000]

You realize in those last 10 years you had 9/11 which caused a recession and the housing market collapsed due to affirmative action housing (aka lending to people who cant pay).

The ten years before Reagan tax cuts tax revenue grew at a rate of 12.41%, the ten years after them it was 5.68%

But I am sure you have an excuse for that as well.

Look, man. If we lower income taxes to zero, we will have infinity revenues! Everybody knows that!

Economy! Economy!

Un, no one thinks that....i'd love to eliminate the income tax....it's commie idea that is horrible. but raising it to 100% doesn't make it so you'll get more taxes......either

Ah. Someone who gets it.

You can't keep lowering taxes and believe you will keep getting more revenues. And vice versa.

There is a happy medium.

There are a metric ton of morons who are only capable of screaming "less taxes!" or "tax the rich more!". Stupid little bumper sticker intellects.

I ignore both.

Well...sometimes I make fun of them.

I agree...….there is a limit where you get the max......but changing tax laws is like deductions, it's used as a way to manipulate the economy. We need to end the income tax and go for a national sales tax.

Remember this? The Fair Tax Primer

That was me! The writer of this post.

 

[g5000]

I can show you where revenues increased after a tax increase. No...really!

Look at the 90s.

"Why was this not on Fox News?!?"

Well the economy doesn't live in a vaccum so other things due influence it......One in the 90s silicon valley exploded.....Clintons tax increase hurt small businesses more than large ones (large ones can afford to pay for this stuff....which is why big business and big government are allies not enemies), but with silicon valley it pushed the economy......and we didn't even have net neutrality...…I have no idea how that happened (/sarcasm)

Actually, we did have net neutrality back then, even though we barely had a net.

Most of the country was using dial-up to get on the net in the 90s, and the whole idea of net neutrality came from the idea of common carrier telephone systems.

 

[buckeye45_73]

The ten years before Reagan tax cuts tax revenue grew at a rate of 12.41%, the ten years after them it was 5.68%

But I am sure you have an excuse for that as well.

Look, man. If we lower income taxes to zero, we will have infinity revenues! Everybody knows that!

Economy! Economy!

Un, no one thinks that....i'd love to eliminate the income tax....it's commie idea that is horrible. but raising it to 100% doesn't make it so you'll get more taxes......either

Ah. Someone who gets it.

You can't keep lowering taxes and believe you will keep getting more revenues. And vice versa.

There is a happy medium.

There are a metric ton of morons who are only capable of screaming "less taxes!" or "tax the rich more!". Stupid little bumper sticker intellects.

I ignore both.

Well...sometimes I make fun of them.

I agree...….there is a limit where you get the max......but changing tax laws is like deductions, it's used as a way to manipulate the economy. We need to end the income tax and go for a national sales tax.

Remember this? The Fair Tax Primer

That was me! The writer of this post.

I know, it's one of the few things we agree on.

 

[buckeye45_73]

I can show you where revenues increased after a tax increase. No...really!

Look at the 90s.

"Why was this not on Fox News?!?"

Well the economy doesn't live in a vaccum so other things due influence it......One in the 90s silicon valley exploded.....Clintons tax increase hurt small businesses more than large ones (large ones can afford to pay for this stuff....which is why big business and big government are allies not enemies), but with silicon valley it pushed the economy......and we didn't even have net neutrality...…I have no idea how that happened (/sarcasm)

Actually, we did have net neutrality back then, even though we barely had a net.

Most of the country was using dial-up to get on the net in the 90s, and the whole idea of net neutrality came from the idea of common carrier telephone systems.

We didn't need it then, we don't need it now.....less government = better.

 

[g5000]

I still remember my first exposure with the internet.

I was a BBS addict in the 80s, and I burned out by the end of that decade. A few years later, one of my troops showed me this newfangled internet.

Of all the silly things out there, the web site he chose to show me was a Russian mail order bride web site.

You have to understand, we were active duty military and were walking around with permanent hardons over the USSR collapsing a few years earlier. So a mail order Russian bride web site was like spiking the ball.

 

[g5000]

Here are the federal tax revenues from 1934 to 2018: Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 - Tax Foundation

Note how they rose after Clinton's tax increase.

Note how they fell after Bush's economic collapse, and then rose again without any change to the tax rates.

I blame Obama.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Here are the federal tax revenues from 1934 to 2018: Federal Tax Revenue by Source, 1934 - 2018 - Tax Foundation

Note how they rose after Clinton's tax increase.

Note how they fell after Bush's economic collapse, and then rose again without any change to the tax rates.

I blame Obama.

If we start at 1934, the prohibition of the private ownership of gold, which was later repealed in 1974, and move through history's timeline, why do you think they rose? Right now the value of the dollar is measured against monetized debt. Which is why the dollar is only worth 4 cents compared to 1934. Income taxes, of course, only pay the interest on those treasury bonds. Treasury bonds being our national debt.

The problem I'm having with your commentary is that you're just reciting a bunch of meaningless numbers. You're leaving monetary policy and its effect throughout history out of the your assessment(s).

 

[TNHarley]

Most of the Federal Government is unconstitutional. They are not supposed to have that power. They shouldnt and they still get more power every day.
A real revolution needs to consist of putting the fed gov back in their damn place. Not discriminating against ambitious people.

Indeed.we live in a facist dictatership.the constitution has been spat on by all the criminals in washington,the zionists AIPAC you worship.

You always say that and i have no idea why

its comedy gold if you SERIOUSLY dont think we live in a facist dictatership and all the politicians in washington are not criminals,the other one i wont even touch you;re so much in denial mode on.

I was referring to me worshiping zionists.

 

[TNHarley]

That doesnt tell me why you think they should only tax the ambitious.

Why do you think only families making over 150,000 are ambitious?

Why do you assume a family making over 150,000 is ambitious?

What would be a proper way to describe them? Since the most irrelevant part of my post is so important and all

Why not just use the dollar amount and not attach an adjective to them.

Ambitious is quicker than saying "those that make 150,000 dollars or more"
Ambitious seems to work just fine. Until some semantic asshole wants to break down a post letter by letter

Poor people working three jobs aren't ambitious. They are just lazy.

Strawman.