Truth Detector (07-18-2019)
Lazy, lazy thinking.
* First, there is no era of trickle down.
* Second, there is nothing wrong with cutting taxes and letting more people keep their money.
* Third, any lost revenue from such cuts is usually filled by increased economic activity (and in this last case it was).
* Fourth. The deficit is not about revenue. It's about SPENDING more than your revenue. SPENDING increases every year, and the House continues to spend more and more. Both Democrats and Republicans are to blame here.
* Fifth. The U.S. government is rapidly running out of options to raise sufficient revenue. Raising taxes too far causes revolts and reduces revenue as economies slow from their effect.
Cherry picking a few recessions that conform to your model and ignoring those that don't is just myopia. That's why such cherry picking is a fallacy.
Truth Detector (07-18-2019)
Phantasmal (07-18-2019)
Truth Detector (07-18-2019)
Truth Detector (07-18-2019)
A link with information which you pretended was important in the discussion. You had no interest in that information--it was simply a distraction from the real issue. The length or any other data about recessions was a huge fake issue.
Earlier I said I opposed the tax cut without spending cuts and you accused me of bad faith because I did not list all the tax cuts I wanted. Now, on another thread, you are discussing offsetting the tax cuts with spending cuts and do not list those cuts, either. It shows what a big phony you are for criticizing others for not including extraneous, unnecessary information while not including the very things you attack others for.
Your claim that a person can kill or assault a Nazi for doing nothing more than waving a flag really shows your complete lack of knowledge of the law and a desire to create a fascist state.
No, they're not, Flash. Again, this is your entitlement coming through. You present topline information, then bristle when asked for details. It's not my job to make your argument for you. If you wanted to make an argument about the correlation between tax rates on the top and recessions, you can only do that by fully exploring the depth, breadth, and details of the recessions and how they were different then vs. today. Ultimately, the argument you were making was pointless.
Here's the part where your entire philosophy comes crashing down around you. This is gonna be brutal, so buckle up...Earlier I said I opposed the tax cut without spending cuts and you accused me of bad faith because I did not list all the tax cuts I wanted.
I don't understand why there have to be spending cuts to go along with tax cuts. Aren't tax cuts supposed to stimulate economic activity that would result in more revenues because "people are allowed to keep more of what they earn, therefore they will spend more"? What gives, Flash? Why do there have to be any offsets for tax cuts if the promise of tax cuts is to boost consumer spending which leads to more revenues??????
So you're conceding that there is no real economic benefit to tax cuts...just an emotional one. And an emotional one that isn't even accurate because historically, over the last 40 years, household debt rises and personal savings declines after every single tax cut. Every. Single. One.
So I guess because official government policy 75 years ago was to kill Nazis, that made the US fascist then?Your claim that a person can kill or assault a Nazi for doing nothing more than waving a flag really shows your complete lack of knowledge of the law and a desire to create a fascist state.
When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist
.
Because to analyze the depth, breath, and details of the 18 recessions (since the income tax) would require much more time and take pages of posts. It was something you had no interest in and neither do the other posters. You proved it was a phony issue because you never used it for analysis. The depth and length of a recession is irrelevant--the fact that most occurred under high top tax rates was the issue. I did not claim high taxes caused it or that recessions do not occur under low tax rates--only that since most recessions (despite their length and depth) occur during high tax rates that therefore low taxes are not the cause. I don't think they are related either way.
.
I never claimed tax cuts increase revenue or stimulate economic activity. You are making claims about my position I never made. So, did you oppose Obama's tax cuts to payroll taxes and extending Bush's tax cuts? Those were both to stimulate the economy. I assume you don't think they worked.
That is really a stretch. We killed Germans (not all were Nazis) in a war. That is very different than killing a person just because of their political views in the U. S. during peacetime. We also fought Japanese, Italians, etc. 75 years ago. Does that mean you can kill them also? It is only fascism when you seek to exterminate people because of the race, religion, or political views.
.
Well...I think you can look at the middling economic growth during that period and see the results yourself. But that would require you to do work, Flash, and we know how lazy you are.
Obama had no other choice because Conservatives in Congress refused to do anything to effectively stimulate the economy following the collapse their tax cutting policies helped cause.
I oppose cutting taxes as a matter of principle no matter what...even payroll tax cuts, which were temporary.
When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist
Again, what was the depth and breadth of those recessions vs. the ones that happened under lower tax rates?
Because the economic collapses and Depressions or near-Depressions all happened during lower tax rates; The Great Depression, The S&L Collapse and 1990-1 recession, the Great Conservative Bush Recession of 2008...
All of the other recessions you're talking about that happened during "high tax rates"...were they as destructive as the ones that weren't? Did they result in taxpayer-funded bailouts like the ones that happened under lower rates? Did they even last as long? How deep were they? How much did the economy contract? Because the economy contracted more, on average, during recessions of low tax rate times vs. the contraction during higher tax rates.
That is the analysis you aren't doing because you're lazy. You're trying to pretend that all recessions are the same because they are recessions...but that's not true, is it? Some recessions are worse than others, aren't they? Some recessions last longer than others, don't they? Some recessions contracted the economy more than others, didn't they?
That's the shit you leave out in order to make sophist arguments.
That's why I say you act in bad faith.
When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist
No, it is not simply emotional. It is a political choice that allows more freedom for the public to spend money as they choose, slows down government spending and size and size of the deficit and debt that reduces the amount of money we have to borrow and pay the interest on.
It is also a decision about what is the proper rate of taxation. If somebody set it at 99% for all Americans most think that is excessive; yet, it would take one of those horrible tax cuts to reduce that amount. The point is that it should never have been set at 99% to start with. Why? Because that is a political opinion. Whether you are cutting or increasing taxes that is simply a matter of what the proper rate should be.
I have seen studies in which many Americans agree with the statement "the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes." But, when asked what is their fair share it is usually between 15-20% with some saying as high as 40%. So what many Americans think is "fair" is actually less than they pay now.
I have never advocated additional tax cuts but neither would I favor increases. Like Trump and Obama, I did favor reductions in the corporate tax rate to make American businesses more competitive and remove the incentive to keep profits abroad.
Bookmarks