The Failure Of “Trickle Down”, and The Generation That Understands This

[Boss]

Tax Cuts = Debt

Actually, it's the other way around. Since Calvin Coolidge, every top marginal tax rate cut has produced MORE tax revenue. Deficits result when you spend more than your revenue.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Hopefully yes, but it seems every generation grows up later than the one before.

I am hoping that the coming up generation will see how pathetic their parents are a grow up faster.

/---- I'm hoping the up coming generation can form a complete sentence that people can understand.

 

[The Derp]

Actually, it's the other way around. Since Calvin Coolidge, every top marginal tax rate cut has produced MORE tax revenue. Deficits result when you spend more than your revenue.

No, that is completely, 100% untrue.

 

[danielpalos]

Tax Cuts = Debt

Actually, it's the other way around. Since Calvin Coolidge, every top marginal tax rate cut has produced MORE tax revenue. Deficits result when you spend more than your revenue.

link or it didn't happen.

and, that argument is bogus.

tax cuts raise revenue, period, or they don't.

 

[danielpalos]

Actually, it's the other way around. Since Calvin Coolidge, every top marginal tax rate cut has produced MORE tax revenue. Deficits result when you spend more than your revenue.

No, that is completely, 100% untrue.

Yes, the right wing still doesn't understand that it is supply that engenders Mr. Say's, say so.

 

[The Derp]

Spending more than you take in= deficits

But you're artificially lowering what is taken in. So tax cuts create deficits.

 

[The Derp]

The "investigation" has been going on for a year with nothing to show for it.

The Watergate Investigation took a year, and that was just a Conservative colluding with American operatives, not Conservatives colluding with a hostile foreign power. Investigations take time. The Grand Jury has already started issuing subpoenas. They only do that if there is enough circumstantial evidence.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

The "investigation" has been going on for a year with nothing to show for it.

The Watergate Investigation took a year, and that was just a Conservative colluding with American operatives, not Conservatives colluding with a hostile foreign power. Investigations take time. The Grand Jury has already started issuing subpoenas. They only do that if there is enough circumstantial evidence.

I think you guys have really picked a good strategy in trying to pair this with watergate. Keep trying to use the terms in the same sentence so that the public will begin to see this as related. I applaud your efforts despite the fact that they are disingenuous.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Actually, it's the other way around. Since Calvin Coolidge, every top marginal tax rate cut has produced MORE tax revenue. Deficits result when you spend more than your revenue.

No, that is completely, 100% untrue.

Yes, the right wing still doesn't understand that it is supply that engenders Mr. Says, say so.

Is this suppose to be a sentence?

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Here is one fact that the left can't outargue and that the federal government collects more money now than it ever did at 1980 yet tax rates are considerably lower than they were since 1980. Can someone explain that without lying? Sorry...democrats can't do that.

 

[The Derp]

I think you guys have really picked a good strategy in trying to pair this with watergate. Keep trying to use the terms in the same sentence so that the public will begin to see this as related. I applaud your efforts despite the fact that they are disingenuous.

Well, Nixon colluded with operatives to break into the headquarters of the DNC, and Trump colluded with Russian operatives to break into the servers of the DNC.

So it's hard to see how they're much different, other than the fact that one used Americans to do the hacking and the other used Russia. I think that both instances are bad, but colluding with Russia seems much worse.

 

[The Derp]

Here is one fact that the left can't outargue and that the federal government collects more money now than it ever did at 1980 yet tax rates are considerably lower than they were since 1980. Can someone explain that without lying? Sorry...democrats can't do that.

Ummm, the economy is much larger now than it was back in 1980. So that's why.

 

[Moonglow]

Actually, it's the other way around. Since Calvin Coolidge, every top marginal tax rate cut has produced MORE tax revenue. Deficits result when you spend more than your revenue.

No, that is completely, 100% untrue.

Yes, the right wing still doesn't understand that it is supply that engenders Mr. Says, say so.

Is this suppose to be a sentence?

Why kerfuffle yes..

 

[danielpalos]

Actually, it's the other way around. Since Calvin Coolidge, every top marginal tax rate cut has produced MORE tax revenue. Deficits result when you spend more than your revenue.

No, that is completely, 100% untrue.

Yes, the right wing still doesn't understand that it is supply that engenders Mr. Says, say so.

Is this suppose to be a sentence?

are you trying to convince me, you have enough reading comprehension to discuss politics?

 

[danielpalos]

Here is one fact that the left can't outargue and that the federal government collects more money now than it ever did at 1980 yet tax rates are considerably lower than they were since 1980. Can someone explain that without lying? Sorry...democrats can't do that.

is that supposed to be an argument?

we simply have a bigger economy, that is all.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Hopefully yes, but it seems every generation grows up later than the one before.

I am hoping that the coming up generation will see how pathetic their parents are a grow up faster.

/---- I'm hoping the up coming generation can form a complete sentence that people can understand.

Dumbed Down by Design

Grammar Nazi! What's wrong with confused unstructured gibberish? It sounds as musical as crickets chirping.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Hopefully yes, but it seems every generation grows up later than the one before.

I am hoping that the coming up generation will see how pathetic their parents are a grow up faster.

/---- I'm hoping the up coming generation can form a complete sentence that people can understand.

Dumbed Down by Design

Grammar Nazi! What's wrong with confused unstructured gibberish? It sounds as musical as crickets chirping.

/----

• Cold is with the monkey's ears and toes.

• Cats dogs and babies its Tuesday.

• Travel trips taken away go.

• Friends are baskets and hats.

• Wishes are hopping and trees are wet.

• TV shows on radios are lazy.

• Food is sitting with weather flying.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Actually, it's the other way around. Since Calvin Coolidge, every top marginal tax rate cut has produced MORE tax revenue. Deficits result when you spend more than your revenue.

No, that is completely, 100% untrue.

/----- Got any proof?

 

[The Derp]

/----- Got any proof?

Yes. Look at federal receipts from 2000-2004.

Federal Receipts (in 000's)
2000: $2,025.2
2001 (Bush Tax Cuts passed): $1,991.1
2002: $1,853.1
2003 (Bush Tax Cuts accelerated): $1,782.3
2004 (Bush Mortgage Bubble starts): $1,880.1

So you can clearly see there that revenue decreased during the Bush tax cuts below 2000 levels.

 

[Boss]

Actually, it's the other way around. Since Calvin Coolidge, every top marginal tax rate cut has produced MORE tax revenue. Deficits result when you spend more than your revenue.

No, that is completely, 100% untrue.

No, it's completely true. It's public record. Here, I'll show you...

These are the top marginal income tax rates. You can clearly see which years we lowered the top marginal tax rates. Pick a year, any year.... then go to the next chart and find the year following the tax cut to see if it produced more or less revenue than the year before:

"Receipts" are the number you're looking for. That is, tax revenues received. Anyone with half a brain can look at the numbers and see, reducing the top marginal tax rates always produces more tax revenue.

Now this is where Socialist propagandists like to pull the bait and switch... they want to start talking about deficits and debt instead of revenue. Yes, deficits rose and debt increased, but that was not the result of tax cuts which produced more revenue. It was a result of spending more than the revenue which was increased.

If I have $10k in debt and I get a $500 per week pay raise, then my wife goes out and spends another $10k, making my debt $20k, the debt problem is not caused by my pay raise. My wife may insist that is, but factually, it is not. And that is the argument you are trying to make when you start talking about the deficits and debt. They have nothing to do with increased revenues from lowering top marginal tax rates.