US government is running out of money faster than expected, Mnuchin warns

[Flash]

Their political views = genocide and ethnic cleansing

Their views are not subject to punishment by your or government. Only actions or conspiracy are subject to criminal prosecution.

And, it is a broad stretch to say all American Nazis share the same views. Some (many) are relatively uninformed about Nazi ideology.

[Flash]

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.

Where is all the data proving your claims? You didn't provide any data about the length or depth or these recessions.

That was the insane response you made when I made the same kind of observations you made. You wanted to know why I didn't post all the data; yet, you do exactly the same thing. You realize it was irrelevant, way too much data to post, of no interest to you or others. Then, your claims make no use of the data but just use generalizations about well-known recessions and depressions.

And, you present 0 evidence tax rates had anything to do with the cause, depth, or length of these recessions.

[gfm7175]

Why spend money where it shouldn't be spent.

Wonder if all the bleeding hearts that claim to care for the less fortunate but support someone else footing the bill would step up and voluntarily provide to those for which they claim to care?

Precisely. I don't think they would, to be honest. They are big fans of compulsion rather than charity. They want a powerful authority to govern over them rather than governing themselves.

[CFM]

Precisely. I don't think they would, to be honest. They are big fans of compulsion rather than charity. They want a powerful authority to govern over them rather than governing themselves.

They consider claiming to help and advocating for someone else to foot the bill as compassion. Last time I looked, compassion was a voluntary act by the giver not a mandated act by those that support taking.

[Sailor]

Well, first if you want to unstop a toilet, you have to get that BIG TURD out of the way- BITCH MITCH McConnell!

Then, and only then, will anything ever pass through Congress!

Don't worry, the Democrats plan on flushing that son-of-a-bitch in 2020! LOL!

Can you name one time you have been right? Just one will suffice.

[Adolf_Twitler]

Can you name one time you have been right? Just one will suffice.

Can you name one time- you have proved me wrong?

Here is the best I can do for you- You stop being wrong about Democrats- And I'll stop being right about Republicans! Deal?

[Sailor]

]Can you name one time- you have proved me wrong?[/B]

Here is the best I can do for you- You stop being wrong about Democrats- And I'll stop being right about Republicans! Deal?

Every time you post. Next stupid question?

[LV426]

No, it is not simply emotional.

Yes it is...that is all it is. It's an emotional argument; "the government is taking your money from you and spending it in places that you don't think are the right places and you believe you can spend that money better yourself". That's an emotional argument, not a political one, not an economic one, not a fiscal one.

It's emotional because it elicits an emotional response out of the target; "don't you feel (insert emotion here) for the government spending money instead of you?" That's the argument being made, sub-textually.

You're getting conned because they're playing to your emotion, and you're not capable of handling your own emotions.

[LV426]

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.

"More freedom"? What are you talking about? More freedom for what? More freedom to spend more of your own money on services the state provides; education and health care.

You realize that when you cut taxes, it results in deficits that then are used as an excuse to cut spending, which results in increased borrowing for consumers. THAT IS WHAT THE DATA SHOWS, FLASH.

So your argument isn't relying on facts, evidence, economics, or fiscal attention; it's entirely based on the emotion of thinking you know how to better spend your money than the government. So it's an emotional argument because it hinges on a feeling of entitlement.

Not once have tax cuts ever delivered on any of the promises made of them; even the one you're making here, that people are better at spending their own money. THEY AREN'T! That's why household debt skyrockets and personal savings always plummets after tax cuts dating back to 1980.

Your argument is bunk.

It's a variation of "tax cuts increase spending and therefore, increase revenues". Except they don't...tax cuts increase debt, both government and individual. That's what the data shows.

You are trying to make an emotional argument without relying on any data or evidence to support you.

Sloppy, sloppy work.

[LV426]

Where is all the data proving your claims? You didn't provide any data about the length or depth or these recessions.

Flash, literally it is in the links you provided!

So...I have done your work for you, and in doing so, came to the conclusion that the recessions that happened under lower tax rates were objectively worse; they lasted longer, contracted the economy more, required taxpayer-funded record bailouts, and were more damaging than the recessions that happened under higher tax rates.

That's what your data shows, Flash. Data you didn't want to explore because you didn't think it was relevant.

Why is it that the worst recessions and depressions we had all were kicked off during periods of lower tax rates?

Why is that what the data shows?

[evince]

that whole argument that government should not do more than military is a debate to allow the wealthy to run EVERYTHING and thwart Democracy


it is NOT what the founders planned


the founders themselves did a Post office and Post Roads paid for by the government funds collected from the people


oooooooooo scary socialist program oooooooo



its an idiot meme that appeals to fucki8ng idiots who don't understand what the founder planned for this nation


Im sick of that idiocy and its totally failed supporters


America was begun to GIVE THE PEOPLE THE POWER TO CONTROL WHAT THIS NATION DOES


these right wing Russian supplicants need to fuck off


The people will decide


if you don't like it shove it up your stupid ass



you will NOT kill this Democracy


go climb up putins as where you belong

[LV426]

And, you present 0 evidence tax rates had anything to do with the cause, depth, or length of these recessions.

I mean, George W. Bush literally tied his tax cuts to the housing bubble in 2004 that ultimately led to the Great Conservative Bush Recession:

Bush Ties Policy to Record Home Ownership
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.
https://www.foxnews.com/story/bush-t...home-ownership

The argument that Bush's Tax Cuts caused the recession is that the tax cuts led to increased borrowing, and that borrowing was being monetized by banks into bubbles which the banks were betting on when they would pop. The whole impetus for those asset bubbles was borrowing, and the impetus for borrowing was cutting taxes. Cutting taxes results in increased household debt and personal savings. That's what the data shows since 1980. So maybe you should explain how going into debt "lets people keep more of what they earn"? Because that's the result of a tax cut, based on the data that I've posted dozens of times in that chart that compares personal savings to household debt that I know you've seen, but have simply ignored because of how inconvenient it is for you and your dogma.

[evince]

Can you name one time- you have proved me wrong?

Here is the best I can do for you- You stop being wrong about Democrats- And I'll stop being right about Republicans! Deal?

I have been at this site for most of the sites lifetime

I have been CORRECT on virtually every issue we have discussed in all those years


the Iraq war and the 2008 crash to name a couple


the right here still pretends they are the ones who can correctly predict results of policy


they cant be real people



if they are real people they are evil


they admit to NO facts


they ignore what people have accomplished in the area of correctly spotting what the facts are


these right here deserves NO RESPECT


they are evil


every human I have encountered in my life that acted like these people and ignored the ability of others to assess a situation were con men


these people here are NOT REAL people


they are operatives or russo bot holes

you could only meet these many liars and "con" men in a prison



they are here to try and make left leaning posters GIVE UP on politics


never give up folks


never internalize their insults

merely beat the shit out of them with facts


people read these pages believe it or not


showthose readers that these cockroaches can be stomped on and that the cockroach shit they leave behind can be cleaned up


the FACTS will save us every time


bury their evil asses in FACTS


they cant breathe in a world of facts


us patriotic American posters here are preforming a public service


plastering over these evil shits lies with FACTS


thank you all you patriots

[LV426]

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.

Nobody is talking about setting a 99% tax rate on all income, so why do you immediately jump to that?

It's a deliberate attempt to spike the discussion because you don't want to admit that low tax rates don't result in "letting people keep more of what they earn". Personal savings rate declines every time taxes have been cut the last 40 years. How can that be, if tax cuts let people keep more of what they earn?

There is no "proper rate" because that is a subjective judgment you are trying to establish as a standard. And what entitlement do you have to establish that standard? None.

Truth is, the "proper rate" is fungible, depending on what commitments the state needs to fulfill. For instance, as Boomers enter retirement, we need to increase tax revenues in order to provide for their entitlements. But the rates that generate those revenues don't need to be as high once the Boomers die off and the Gen Xers enter retirement. We do have the ability to shift tax rates in order to account for demographic changes. So if we don't have M4A, but we want to provide health care to the tens of millions of Boomers who are retiring, we temporarily raise the tax rates so that we have the revenues to pay for their health care, then we lower those tax rates once the Boomers die off. And we just do that over and over, every generation. Why is that so controversial?

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.

According to most economists, the top tax rate should be between 50-70%. Truly, I don't believe we would really even need to touch tax rates for the lower brackets at all if we establish a higher one, while also removing the cap on taxable SS income. The more the state can fund essential services like health care and education off tax rates on top earners and corporations, the less individuals need to spend on that stuff out of their own pocket, thus freeing up more money for them to spend in the consumer market. Part of the reason why home ownership among Millennials is so low is because they are burdened with trillions in student debt. Student debt they rang up because they had to borrow to attend college because tuition costs are so high, even for state schools. BUT - if they state raised taxes on the rich to pay for public college, the state could increase its spending for colleges, which would prompt the Board of Regents to lower tuition, which would result in less borrowing by those students, which results in less household debt.

The economics are so simple, it's pure emotion as to why anyone would oppose them; the emotion of jealousy or resentment that the taxes some rich person pays goes to make sure a poor person or middle class person can go to college or get health care. That prospect elicits a negative emotional reaction out of you because of how depraved you are; and the more depraved you are, the more emotional you become...so much so that you get to the point of laughably saying you could spend your money better than the state, even though we have demonstrated the last 40 years that prospect is a fallacy.

For some reason, that just doesn't register with you. It's not hard to figure out why.

[Getin the ring]

after Obama doubled our debt it's a wonder we are still operating.

help is on the way