Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
WTF,
You are wrong. When Reagan cut taxes government revenue increased. The deficit was do to spending. The same will happen this time unless Congress cuts spending. You can't blame the deficit on the tax cut if revenue increases. I have explained this to you several times in other threads but you continue with the same old leftist talking points.
opinions are like assholes and well assholes are brainless
WTF,
You are wrong. When Reagan cut taxes government revenue increased. The deficit was do to spending. The same will happen this time unless Congress cuts spending. You can't blame the deficit on the tax cut if revenue increases. I have explained this to you several times in other threads but you continue with the same old leftist talking points.
By conveniently pointing to places where tax cuts were enacted at or around the time of a recovery or boom, tax cut advocates argue that tax cuts increase revenue. The problem with this is that the revenue increases following the Bush and Reagan tax cuts are dwarfed by the revenue increase following Bill Clinton’s tax increase on the wealthiest Americans. In fact, as a percentage of GDP, post-Reagan & Bush tax cut revenue falls below the 1965-2005 average. In other words, revenue increased because the economy was recovering/growing, and the tax cuts have little (probably nothing) to do with growth in GDP. if anything, these tax cuts actually lowered revenue increased from what they would have been otherwise. So the real question to ask is this: how much revenue did these tax cuts cost us?
Investment has been shown to increase both after tax cuts and tax increases. Investment increased both after Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax increases and after George W Bush’s 2003 tax cuts. The reason is simple: investors were confident because the economy was growing and therefore felt that it was a good time to invest. In other words, it’s demand and other market signals that investors care about most, not tax rates.Tax rates can no doubt play a role(especially if they are disproportionately high), but the tax rate fluctuations between the Clinton vs Reagan and Bush tax rates are rather inconsequential to investor behavior.
Budman , you really need to read the Laffer Curve....it does not state that every time you lower the tax rate revenue increases. You Reagan lovers have been trying to sell that manure for over 30 years. Would you next like to see a chart of the disappearing middle class and the growing gap in income disparity since the 1980s?
There are 291 Republicans in Congress, and only one voted against the GOP tax bill because he thinks it will increase the U.S. deficit.
A 12-term congressman from the eastern banks of North Carolina, Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr. (R-N.C.) says his fellow House Republicans have used cherry-picked data and fanciful projections to delude themselves that the plan will not balloon the federal deficit.
“I guarantee you, if Mr. Obama was the president and he put this tax bill in, those deficit hawks in my party would get out of the nests and start squawking,” Jones said. “But here they are, and because it’s a Republican president possibly adding $1.5 to $2 trillion to this country’s deficit, they’re going to stay in the nest and not squawk about it.”
In statistics, many statistical tests calculate correlations between variables and when two variables are found to be correlated, it is tempting to assume that this shows that one variable causes the other.[1][2] That "correlation proves causation," is considered a questionable causelogical fallacy when two events occurring together are taken to have established a cause-and-effect relationship. This fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "with this, therefore because of this," and "false cause." A similar fallacy, that an event that followed another was necessarily a consequence of the first event, is the post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "after this, therefore because of this.") fallacy.
Tax cuts do not create deficits, over spending does.
When Congress began abdicating their responsibility to establish a real budget and creating the automatic budget increases has caused more to add to the debt than anything else.
And when they stopped obeying hte LAW and not getting punished for it, by failing to pass a proper budget for what, going on 10 years now, there's NO REASON for them to start doing so now..
By conveniently pointing to places where tax cuts were enacted at or around the time of a recovery or boom, tax cut advocates argue that tax cuts increase revenue. The problem with this is that the revenue increases following the Bush and Reagan tax cuts are dwarfed by the revenue increase following Bill Clinton’s tax increase on the wealthiest Americans. In fact, as a percentage of GDP, post-Reagan & Bush tax cut revenue falls below the 1965-2005 average. In other words, revenue increased because the economy was recovering/growing, and the tax cuts have little (probably nothing) to do with growth in GDP. if anything, these tax cuts actually lowered revenue increased from what they would have been otherwise. So the real question to ask is this: how much revenue did these tax cuts cost us?
Investment has been shown to increase both after tax cuts and tax increases. Investment increased both after Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax increases and after George W Bush’s 2003 tax cuts. The reason is simple: investors were confident because the economy was growing and therefore felt that it was a good time to invest. In other words, it’s demand and other market signals that investors care about most, not tax rates.Tax rates can no doubt play a role(especially if they are disproportionately high), but the tax rate fluctuations between the Clinton vs Reagan and Bush tax rates are rather inconsequential to investor behavior.
Budman , you really need to read the Laffer Curve....it does not state that every time you lower the tax rate revenue increases. You Reagan lovers have been trying to sell that manure for over 30 years. Would you next like to see a chart of the disappearing middle class and the growing gap in income disparity since the 1980s? .
We obviously look at this from opposite sides. I can provide links as well supporting my viewpoint. Here's one. https://www.wsj.com/articles/reagan-...med-1501800678 . So now I can claim superiority because I found an expert supporting my viewpoint but you can find experts supporting your viewpoint as well. The difference comes in how we view the money we make. I believe that the money I make is mine and I should be allowed to keep more of it and the left believes that all money is governments and think they should dole it out to us as an allowance. I believe the government can and should get their shit together and cut spending and have a balanced budget. The deficit is do to over spending and nothing else. If you get a $10,000 per year raise but increase your spending by $20,000 the deficit you now have is not because of the raise. Conversely if you have to take a pay cut but continue to spend as if you still make the same money the deficit is still your fault. The pay cut may have contributed to it but the uncontrolled spending is the main factor in the deficit. I believe the government has an uncontrolled spending habit that has been the norm for so long that many are convinced that it can't be any other way. Both sides of the political fence are guilty of this and they need to get their shit together and balance the budget based on the revenue that they have.
The difference comes in how we view the money we make. I believe that the money I make is mine and I should be allowed to keep more of it and the left believes that all money is governments and think they should dole it out to us as an allowance. .
I believe that we should pay our bills....that includes Military Spending that you love so much.
The majority of our Federal Debt is because we have not paid for our War debts nor our military spending.
We used to pay for say the Iraq War and all its ongoing expenses via inheritance tax on the rich as they have much more influence in government. You did not want folks profiting from a war and then giving that profit to their children....that is called a transfer of wealth or some (me included) call it welfare to the spoiled rotten(Trump).
You are one who probably thinks that the inheritance tax is not fair.
You say we should stop spending , yet you want to increase spending on the vast military industrial complex....which up until now has been the chief driver of our debt.
So yes we view how we spend the money we make differently...I think that money should pay for the toys we buy, if we want to spend less, we buy fewer toys. You want to continue to spend and then bitch about the mounting debt!
Makes no sense to me....but then I was not brainwashed during the Reagan era. I understood the Laffer Curve...which states that cutting taxes does not always result in more tax revenue.
I believe that we should pay our bills....that includes Military Spending that you love so much.
The majority of our Federal Debt is because we have not paid for our War debts nor our military spending.
We used to pay for say the Iraq War and all its ongoing expenses via inheritance tax on the rich as they have much more influence in government. You did not want folks profiting from a war and then giving that profit to their children....that is called a transfer of wealth or some (me included) call it welfare to the spoiled rotten(Trump).
You are one who probably thinks that the inheritance tax is not fair.
You say we should stop spending , yet you want to increase spending on the vast military industrial complex....which up until now has been the chief driver of our debt.
So yes we view how we spend the money we make differently...I think that money should pay for the toys we buy, if we want to spend less, we buy fewer toys. You want to continue to spend and then bitch about the mounting debt!
Makes no sense to me....but then I was not brainwashed during the Reagan era. I understood the Laffer Curve...which states that cutting taxes does not always result in more tax revenue.
The majority of our debt is entitlement spending you assclown. Stick to posting memes. They’re almost as funny as your posts.
