Trump's tax plan.....You judge!

[edthecynic]

The recession started in the third quarter of 2000 and ended in 2003. And it was actually a hard recession.

LIAR!

The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001. A peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession. The determination of a peak date in March is thus a determination that the expansion that began in March 1992ended in March 2001 and a recession began.

The Dot-Com Bubble Bursts

The Dot-Com Bubble Bursts
DEC. 24, 2000

What a difference a year makes. The Nasdaq sank. Stock tips have been replaced with talk of recession. Many pioneering dot-coms are out of business or barely surviving. The Dow Jones Internet Index, made up of dot-com blue chips, is down more than 72 percent since March. Online retailers Priceline and eToys, former Wall Street darlings, have seen their stock prices fall more than 99 percent from their highs.

Bill Clinton was still in power at this time as the presidency was passed Jan 20th 2001. But you liberals just continue to try to revise history, I will be there to set the record straight.

The dot com bubble may have burst in 2000, but it didn't cause a recession as GDP peaked in March 2001. Bush owns the First Bush Recession, just as he owns the Great Bush Recession.

Bush tax cuts = 2 recessions in 8 years. Obama = no recessions in 8 years.

 

[edthecynic]

cutting taxes increases revenue.

Never has in the past, never will in the future, with the only exception of payroll taxes. Cutting payroll taxes are the only tax cuts that grow the economy.

 

[kaz]

You don't know what you are talking about. You're just parroting lawyers. Here's two people who knew that. JFK and Reagan. And it worked both times

LOL, ok here is David Stockman, Reagan's budget director to explain to you your intellectual depravity:

"The second unhappy change in the American economy has been the extraordinary growth of our public debt. In 1970 it was just 40 percent of gross domestic product, or about $425 billion. When it reaches $18 trillion, it will be 40 times greater than in 1970. This debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts."

Haines: Tax Cuts Do Contribute to Nation's Deficit

Note he didn't address the point we're debating.

You actually don't grasp the difference between deficits and tax revenue, do you?

What Stockton was saying that tax cuts aren't enough if you don't control spending.

Reagan agreed to trade Tip domestic spending increases for military increases. Stockton was addressing that

 

[AntonToo]

cutting taxes increases revenue.

Never has in the past, never will in the future, with the only exception of payroll taxes. Cutting payroll taxes are the only tax cuts that grow the economy.

It has in the past, but it wasn't ever because if secondary economic effects tax-cuts bought. It was because at high enough rates people would spend more money on accountants and lawyers and less on paying taxes. Who in their right mind will pay 90% tax? But at current low rates these pleads are ridiculous.

 

[kaz]

The recession started in the third quarter of 2000 and ended in 2003. And it was actually a hard recession.

LIAR!

The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001. A peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession. The determination of a peak date in March is thus a determination that the expansion that began in March 1992ended in March 2001 and a recession began.

The Dot-Com Bubble Bursts

The Dot-Com Bubble Bursts
DEC. 24, 2000

What a difference a year makes. The Nasdaq sank. Stock tips have been replaced with talk of recession. Many pioneering dot-coms are out of business or barely surviving. The Dow Jones Internet Index, made up of dot-com blue chips, is down more than 72 percent since March. Online retailers Priceline and eToys, former Wall Street darlings, have seen their stock prices fall more than 99 percent from their highs.

Bill Clinton was still in power at this time as the presidency was passed Jan 20th 2001. But you liberals just continue to try to revise history, I will be there to set the record straight.

The dot com bubble may have burst in 2000, but it didn't cause a recession as GDP peaked in March 2001. Bush owns the First Bush Recession, just as he owns the Great Bush Recession.

Bush tax cuts = 2 recessions in 8 years. Obama = no recessions in 8 years.

Yes, Republicans are responsible for the year they take office before they present a single budget Obama wasn't even responsible for spending in his second administration. That's the disingenuous hacks you people are

 

[kaz]

cutting taxes increases revenue.

Never has in the past, never will in the future, with the only exception of payroll taxes. Cutting payroll taxes are the only tax cuts that grow the economy.

Liberal lawyers oppose tax cuts even though they grow revenue for two reasons:

1) Even though it grows the size of government, it grows the economy even further which reduces the power they wield over the economy

2) Even though the poor get richer, to wage an effective class war you need to not only reward the poor with $$$ you have to take money from the rich to punish them, not just fund the government

You oppose tax cuts because the liberal lawyers said that and you're a parrot

 

[AntonToo]

You don't know what you are talking about. You're just parroting lawyers. Here's two people who knew that. JFK and Reagan. And it worked both times

LOL, ok here is David Stockman, Reagan's budget director to explain to you your intellectual depravity:

"The second unhappy change in the American economy has been the extraordinary growth of our public debt. In 1970 it was just 40 percent of gross domestic product, or about $425 billion. When it reaches $18 trillion, it will be 40 times greater than in 1970. This debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts."

Haines: Tax Cuts Do Contribute to Nation's Deficit

Note he didn't address the point we're debating.

You actually don't grasp the difference between deficits and tax revenue, do you?

What Stockton was saying that tax cuts aren't enough if you don't control spending.

Reagan agreed to trade Tip domestic spending increases for military increases. Stockton was addressing that

BULLSHIT - you are just conflating two separate factors.

-deficit = revenues-spending

Yes, if you offset revenues LOSS with spending cut, deficit does not increase, but you fools are stuck on denying that tax-cuts actually do cause revenue loss, so wtf is the point in talking about PAYING for these non-losses?

 

[kaz]

cutting taxes increases revenue.

Never has in the past, never will in the future, with the only exception of payroll taxes. Cutting payroll taxes are the only tax cuts that grow the economy.

It has in the past, but it wasn't ever because if secondary economic effects tax-cuts bought. It was because at high enough rates people would spend more money on accountants and lawyers and less on paying taxes. Who in their right mind will pay 90% tax? But at current low rates these pleads are ridiculous.

Current "low" rates, LOL. Obviously you're in the 50% who don't pay taxes ...

 

[AntonToo]

Liberal lawyers

...AND CONSERVATIVE ECONOMISTS, reject the notion that tax-cuts at current rates are self-financing.

 

[kaz]

You don't know what you are talking about. You're just parroting lawyers. Here's two people who knew that. JFK and Reagan. And it worked both times

LOL, ok here is David Stockman, Reagan's budget director to explain to you your intellectual depravity:

"The second unhappy change in the American economy has been the extraordinary growth of our public debt. In 1970 it was just 40 percent of gross domestic product, or about $425 billion. When it reaches $18 trillion, it will be 40 times greater than in 1970. This debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts."

Haines: Tax Cuts Do Contribute to Nation's Deficit

Note he didn't address the point we're debating.

You actually don't grasp the difference between deficits and tax revenue, do you?

What Stockton was saying that tax cuts aren't enough if you don't control spending.

Reagan agreed to trade Tip domestic spending increases for military increases. Stockton was addressing that

BULLSHIT - you are just conflating two separate factors.

-deficit = revenues-spending

Yes, if you offset revenues LOSS with spending cut, deficit does not increase, but you fools are stuck on denying that tax-cuts actually do cause revenue loss, so wtf is the point in talking about PAYING for these non-losses?

You actually can't read, can you? Other than on a cursory level. I'm tired of correcting your misstating what I said. Though at this point I'm thinking you're lying, you just have very low reading comprehension

 

[AntonToo]

cutting taxes increases revenue.

Never has in the past, never will in the future, with the only exception of payroll taxes. Cutting payroll taxes are the only tax cuts that grow the economy.

It has in the past, but it wasn't ever because if secondary economic effects tax-cuts bought. It was because at high enough rates people would spend more money on accountants and lawyers and less on paying taxes. Who in their right mind will pay 90% tax? But at current low rates these pleads are ridiculous.

Current "low" rates, LOL. Obviously you're in the 50% who don't pay taxes ...

Obviously you are a retard. I pay plenty of taxes with around $200,000 income. So stfu.

 

[kaz]

Liberal lawyers

...AND CONSERVATIVE ECONOMISTS, reject the notion that tax-cuts at current rates are self-financing.

Bull shit. And no one thought David Stockton was a "conservative" economist

 

[kaz]

cutting taxes increases revenue.

Never has in the past, never will in the future, with the only exception of payroll taxes. Cutting payroll taxes are the only tax cuts that grow the economy.

It has in the past, but it wasn't ever because if secondary economic effects tax-cuts bought. It was because at high enough rates people would spend more money on accountants and lawyers and less on paying taxes. Who in their right mind will pay 90% tax? But at current low rates these pleads are ridiculous.

Current "low" rates, LOL. Obviously you're in the 50% who don't pay taxes ...

Obviously you are a retard. I pay plenty of taxes.

I'm not talking about the sales taxes when you spend your food stamps

 

[kaz]

cutting taxes increases revenue.

Never has in the past, never will in the future, with the only exception of payroll taxes. Cutting payroll taxes are the only tax cuts that grow the economy.

It has in the past, but it wasn't ever because if secondary economic effects tax-cuts bought. It was because at high enough rates people would spend more money on accountants and lawyers and less on paying taxes. Who in their right mind will pay 90% tax? But at current low rates these pleads are ridiculous.

Current "low" rates, LOL. Obviously you're in the 50% who don't pay taxes ...

Obviously you are a retard. I pay plenty of taxes with around $200,000 income. So stfu.

I make $12 trillion. Funny thing on the Internet, you can say whatever you want. You're not demonstrating any knowledge on the subject, that is a lot more convincing

 

[AntonToo]

You don't know what you are talking about. You're just parroting lawyers. Here's two people who knew that. JFK and Reagan. And it worked both times

LOL, ok here is David Stockman, Reagan's budget director to explain to you your intellectual depravity:

"The second unhappy change in the American economy has been the extraordinary growth of our public debt. In 1970 it was just 40 percent of gross domestic product, or about $425 billion. When it reaches $18 trillion, it will be 40 times greater than in 1970. This debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts."

Haines: Tax Cuts Do Contribute to Nation's Deficit

Note he didn't address the point we're debating.

You actually don't grasp the difference between deficits and tax revenue, do you?

What Stockton was saying that tax cuts aren't enough if you don't control spending.

Reagan agreed to trade Tip domestic spending increases for military increases. Stockton was addressing that

BULLSHIT - you are just conflating two separate factors.

-deficit = revenues-spending

Yes, if you offset revenues LOSS with spending cut, deficit does not increase, but you fools are stuck on denying that tax-cuts actually do cause revenue loss, so wtf is the point in talking about PAYING for these non-losses?

You actually can't read, can you? Other than on a cursory level. I'm tired of correcting your misstating what I said. Though at this point I'm thinking you're lying, you just have very low reading comprehension

I can read just fine. Not only that, I can also put up a rational objection to your stupid argument.

I didn't mis-state anything:

If tax cuts are self financing (as you claim) then any talk about offsetting such NON LOSS is nonsense.


What of this do you dispute?

 

[AntonToo]

cutting taxes increases revenue.

Never has in the past, never will in the future, with the only exception of payroll taxes. Cutting payroll taxes are the only tax cuts that grow the economy.

It has in the past, but it wasn't ever because if secondary economic effects tax-cuts bought. It was because at high enough rates people would spend more money on accountants and lawyers and less on paying taxes. Who in their right mind will pay 90% tax? But at current low rates these pleads are ridiculous.

Current "low" rates, LOL. Obviously you're in the 50% who don't pay taxes ...

Obviously you are a retard. I pay plenty of taxes with around $200,000 income. So stfu.

I make $12 trillion. Funny thing on the Internet, you can say whatever you want. You're not demonstrating any knowledge on the subject, that is a lot more convincing

I see, so I have no income and you make 12 Trillion.

I can say anything I want, but I also have some self respect not to lie to strangers on anonymous message board.

 

[CowboyTed]

Apparently there are some the subscribe to the false notion that the second or highest corporate tax rate in developed and emerging market economies and repressive government regulations have nothing to do with the myopic expansion in GDP, private sector job creation, and federal and state tax revenue collection? Go figure?
The pundits will claim tax revenue is up, yet true as a result of the last increase, however, even the top 6% of the income earners can not fund this government alone, and let us never forget whom is it that invests in business start-ups, and whom it is that purchases goods and services.
Yet then again there are those that are addicted to ice creme, candy, and cake without skin in the game that know but one thing, insure the other person pays the tab, and spend more.

Everyone in the business community agrees that corporate tax rates must be cut drastically.

At the same time companies like Apple and Google and Microsoft who are shifting income to tax havens must pay their fair share at the same top corporate rates.

There is no question.

Are Apple, Google and Microsoft not in the Business Community? And they pay next to nothing...

So it is not everyone....

 

[edthecynic]

The recession started in the third quarter of 2000 and ended in 2003. And it was actually a hard recession.

LIAR!

The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001. A peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession. The determination of a peak date in March is thus a determination that the expansion that began in March 1992ended in March 2001 and a recession began.

I addressed that, you cut it from my quote

You addressed nothing. You only pontificated a load of bullshit, that the First Bush Recession started in 2000 with a positive GDP and ended in 2003, when it actually started in March 2001 when GDP peaked and ended November 2001 when GDP hit its trough.

Peak
March 2001(I)
The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001. A peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession. The determination of a peak date in March is thus a determination that the expansion that began in March 1991 ended in March 2001 and a recession began. The expansion lasted exactly 10 years, the longest in the NBER's chronology

A recession is a significant decline in activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, visible in industrial production, employment, real income, and wholesale-retail trade. A recession begins just after the economy reaches a peak of activity and ends as the economy reaches its trough.

Trough
November 2001 (IV)
CAMBRIDGE July 17 -- The Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research met yesterday. At its meeting, the committee determined that a trough in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in November 2001. The trough marks the end of the recession that began in March 2001 and the beginning of an expansion. The recession lasted 8 months, which is slightly less than average for recessions since World War II.

In determining that a trough occurred in November 2001, the committee did not conclude that economic conditions since that month have been favorable or that the economy has returned to operating at normal capacity. Rather, the committee determined only that the recession ended and a recovery began in that month. A recession is a period of falling economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales. The trough marks the end of the declining phase and the start of the rising phase of the business cycle. Economic activity is typically below normal in the early stages of an expansion, and it sometimes remains so well into the expansion.

The committee waited to make the determination of the trough date until it was confident that any future downturn in the economy would be considered a new recession and not a continuation of the recession that began in March 2001.

Contraction
8 Months

 

[CowboyTed]

Funny how when a republican president is in office an the house and senate are flaming liberals, then all debt is the presidents. But reverse it and Obama is never held accountable for the 10 trillion dollars of debt , but the republican house and senate. There is stupid and then there is really stupid and those are Democrats.

Continue being an idiot.........

Here are Obama's "mistakes" regarding the debt......

1. Obama extended the tax cuts started by GWB (who gave tax cuts while starting TWO wars)

2. Obama went along with the huge debt incurred by Medicare Advantage (another GWB initiative)

3. Obama borrowed hugely to bail out the auto industry.

If there's a grown up around your household, ask for help.

You forgot how he moved the Debt from the Iraq War to the National Debt...

 

[AntonToo]

Liberal lawyers

...AND CONSERVATIVE ECONOMISTS, reject the notion that tax-cuts at current rates are self-financing.

Bull shit. And no one thought David Stockton was a "conservative" economist

lol ok who IS a conservative economist?