If any of you want to read it

This is going to be an absolute disaster for Republicans. They say this is already paid for, but reality is Trump paid for it by lowering taxes on the rich, which then gave Democrats free money to spend by raising taxes on the rich. Sorta like a shell game because in reality, it's not paid for since the Trump tax cuts were never paid for. Sorta like how the repeal of the Bush tax cuts supposedly paid for Obamacare in the same manner.

This has been an endless cycle the past 20 years between Republican and Democratic administrations, all fueled by Republicans "starve the beast" strategy. Such strategy obviously is a complete failure since it took Bill Clinton administration's balanced budget/few trillion national debt and turned it into what's now going on a few trillion deficit/100 trillion national debt in only 20 years or so.

It's very hard to figure out Republican policy other than obstructionism and desperation support for fringe anti-societal groups and ideas. But "Starve the Beast" seems to be at the core of what's driving today's Republican fundraising from the rich donors. The fringe anti-society support drives it from the small scale riff-raff ("deplorables").. but that accounts for a lot of it, and makes those who fan those flames rich as a side benefit.

For numbnut leftists, the problem is always due to a person no longer in office and the party who is not currently in charge.

(10-29-2021 04:38 AM)scorpius Wrote:  This is going to be an absolute disaster for Republicans. They say this is already paid for, but reality is Trump paid for it by lowering taxes on the rich, which then gave Democrats free money to spend by raising taxes on the rich. Sorta like a shell game because in reality, it's not paid for since the Trump tax cuts were never paid for. Sorta like how the repeal of the Bush tax cuts supposedly paid for Obamacare in the same manner.

This has been an endless cycle the past 20 years between Republican and Democratic administrations, all fueled by Republicans "starve the beast" strategy. Such strategy obviously is a complete failure since it took Bill Clinton administration's balanced budget/few trillion national debt and turned it into what's now going on a few trillion deficit/100 trillion national debt in only 20 years or so.

It's very hard to figure out Republican policy other than obstructionism and desperation support for fringe anti-societal groups and ideas. But "Starve the Beast" seems to be at the core of what's driving today's Republican fundraising from the rich donors. The fringe anti-society support drives it from the small scale riff-raff ("deplorables").. but that accounts for a lot of it, and makes those who fan those flames rich as a side benefit.

A) You don't "pay" for tax cuts. Allowing the people to keep more of their money does not "cost" the government anything. It can't, because the money does not belong to the government in the first place.

B) Tax revenues were WAY up last year. You don't have to to raise taxes percentages to generate revenue, if you put the right policies in place that encourage an active and vibrant economy. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/10/12...mic-515792

(10-29-2021 08:49 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 04:38 AM)scorpius Wrote:  This is going to be an absolute disaster for Republicans. They say this is already paid for, but reality is Trump paid for it by lowering taxes on the rich, which then gave Democrats free money to spend by raising taxes on the rich. Sorta like a shell game because in reality, it's not paid for since the Trump tax cuts were never paid for. Sorta like how the repeal of the Bush tax cuts supposedly paid for Obamacare in the same manner.

This has been an endless cycle the past 20 years between Republican and Democratic administrations, all fueled by Republicans "starve the beast" strategy. Such strategy obviously is a complete failure since it took Bill Clinton administration's balanced budget/few trillion national debt and turned it into what's now going on a few trillion deficit/100 trillion national debt in only 20 years or so.

It's very hard to figure out Republican policy other than obstructionism and desperation support for fringe anti-societal groups and ideas. But "Starve the Beast" seems to be at the core of what's driving today's Republican fundraising from the rich donors. The fringe anti-society support drives it from the small scale riff-raff ("deplorables").. but that accounts for a lot of it, and makes those who fan those flames rich as a side benefit.

A) You don't "pay" for tax cuts. Allowing the people to keep more of their money does not "cost" the government anything. It can't, because the money does not belong to the government in the first place.

B) Tax revenues were WAY up last year. You don't have to to raise taxes percentages to generate revenue, if you put the right policies in place that encourage an active and vibrant economy. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/10/12...mic-515792

Democrats will NEVER understand your two points.

(10-28-2021 06:36 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Biden taught her his patented move.

Are those on the left completely tone deaf as to just how much behaviour like this simply reeks of arrogance and condescension?

"I am Nancy Pelosi, you are peons." It's like, "Let them eat cake."

(10-29-2021 08:52 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 08:49 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 04:38 AM)scorpius Wrote:  This is going to be an absolute disaster for Republicans. They say this is already paid for, but reality is Trump paid for it by lowering taxes on the rich, which then gave Democrats free money to spend by raising taxes on the rich. Sorta like a shell game because in reality, it's not paid for since the Trump tax cuts were never paid for. Sorta like how the repeal of the Bush tax cuts supposedly paid for Obamacare in the same manner.

This has been an endless cycle the past 20 years between Republican and Democratic administrations, all fueled by Republicans "starve the beast" strategy. Such strategy obviously is a complete failure since it took Bill Clinton administration's balanced budget/few trillion national debt and turned it into what's now going on a few trillion deficit/100 trillion national debt in only 20 years or so.

It's very hard to figure out Republican policy other than obstructionism and desperation support for fringe anti-societal groups and ideas. But "Starve the Beast" seems to be at the core of what's driving today's Republican fundraising from the rich donors. The fringe anti-society support drives it from the small scale riff-raff ("deplorables").. but that accounts for a lot of it, and makes those who fan those flames rich as a side benefit.

A) You don't "pay" for tax cuts. Allowing the people to keep more of their money does not "cost" the government anything. It can't, because the money does not belong to the government in the first place.

B) Tax revenues were WAY up last year. You don't have to to raise taxes percentages to generate revenue, if you put the right policies in place that encourage an active and vibrant economy. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/10/12...mic-515792

Democrats will NEVER understand your two points.

Maybe they have a hard time hearing us because of the massive sound of money currently pouring into the treasury due to Trumps tax cuts.

(10-29-2021 10:42 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 08:52 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 08:49 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 04:38 AM)scorpius Wrote:  This is going to be an absolute disaster for Republicans. They say this is already paid for, but reality is Trump paid for it by lowering taxes on the rich, which then gave Democrats free money to spend by raising taxes on the rich. Sorta like a shell game because in reality, it's not paid for since the Trump tax cuts were never paid for. Sorta like how the repeal of the Bush tax cuts supposedly paid for Obamacare in the same manner.

This has been an endless cycle the past 20 years between Republican and Democratic administrations, all fueled by Republicans "starve the beast" strategy. Such strategy obviously is a complete failure since it took Bill Clinton administration's balanced budget/few trillion national debt and turned it into what's now going on a few trillion deficit/100 trillion national debt in only 20 years or so.

It's very hard to figure out Republican policy other than obstructionism and desperation support for fringe anti-societal groups and ideas. But "Starve the Beast" seems to be at the core of what's driving today's Republican fundraising from the rich donors. The fringe anti-society support drives it from the small scale riff-raff ("deplorables").. but that accounts for a lot of it, and makes those who fan those flames rich as a side benefit.

A) You don't "pay" for tax cuts. Allowing the people to keep more of their money does not "cost" the government anything. It can't, because the money does not belong to the government in the first place.

B) Tax revenues were WAY up last year. You don't have to to raise taxes percentages to generate revenue, if you put the right policies in place that encourage an active and vibrant economy. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/10/12...mic-515792

Democrats will NEVER understand your two points.

Maybe they have a hard time hearing us because of the massive sound of money currently pouring into the treasury due to Trumps tax cuts.

Personally I think its because as a whole they're ******* idiots who think individuals compensation for their labor belongs to the govt and not the individuals themselves.

(10-29-2021 08:49 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  A) You don't "pay" for tax cuts. Allowing the people to keep more of their money does not "cost" the government anything. It can't, because the money does not belong to the government in the first place.

Next time you need to pay a bill, see if your strategy of not paying for it will make it go away.

Quote:B) Tax revenues were WAY up last year. You don't have to to raise taxes percentages to generate revenue, if you put the right policies in place that encourage an active and vibrant economy. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/10/12...mic-515792

Under you logic, if we get rid of taxes, suddenly as if by magic we'll have unlimited revenue and a balanced budget. Okay if you're not saying that, then tell me, what exactly is the goldilocks tax rate that maximizes revenue? You can't answer that without pulling an answer out of your a$$. No one can without presenting specific examples in history as evidence. What we do know is that if you don't pay your bills, you're in financial trouble.

We have among the lowest tax rates in the world. Thus any argument that we can squeeze anymore economic activity out of lowering taxes is utterly laughable. It's to the point now that it's putting our future financial stablity at grave risk. The late 90's was the last time we had sustainable tax rates which balanced the budget and it also happened during one of our greatest economic expansions in history. Those largely Reagan-inspired tax rates are what we should try to get back to since we know they work for both paying our bills and not hindering economic growth.

(10-29-2021 04:38 AM)scorpius Wrote:  This is going to be an absolute disaster for Republicans. They say this is already paid for, but reality is Trump paid for it by lowering taxes on the rich, which then gave Democrats free money to spend by raising taxes on the rich. Sorta like a shell game because in reality, it's not paid for since the Trump tax cuts were never paid for. Sorta like how the repeal of the Bush tax cuts supposedly paid for Obamacare in the same manner.

This has been an endless cycle the past 20 years between Republican and Democratic administrations, all fueled by Republicans "starve the beast" strategy. Such strategy obviously is a complete failure since it took Bill Clinton administration's balanced budget/few trillion national debt and turned it into what's now going on a few trillion deficit/100 trillion national debt in only 20 years or so.

It's very hard to figure out Republican policy other than obstructionism and desperation support for fringe anti-societal groups and ideas. But "Starve the Beast" seems to be at the core of what's driving today's Republican fundraising from the rich donors. The fringe anti-society support drives it from the small scale riff-raff ("deplorables").. but that accounts for a lot of it, and makes those who fan those flames rich as a side benefit.

So, prove us supply sliders wrong and start scratching those big check to Federal Gubment Inc.

Somehow I doubt you do that and are simply full of schit.

Prove me wrong.

#clownshow

(10-30-2021 10:51 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 08:49 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  A) You don't "pay" for tax cuts. Allowing the people to keep more of their money does not "cost" the government anything. It can't, because the money does not belong to the government in the first place.

Next time you need to pay a bill, see if your strategy of not paying for it will make it go away.

Quote:B) Tax revenues were WAY up last year. You don't have to to raise taxes percentages to generate revenue, if you put the right policies in place that encourage an active and vibrant economy. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/10/12...mic-515792

Under you logic, if we get rid of taxes, suddenly as if by magic we'll have unlimited revenue and a balanced budget. Okay if you're not saying that, then tell me, what exactly is the goldilocks tax rate that maximizes revenue? You can't answer that without pulling an answer out of your a$$. No one can without presenting specific examples in history as evidence. What we do know is that if you don't pay your bills, you're in financial trouble.

We have among the lowest tax rates in the world. Thus any argument that we can squeeze anymore economic activity out of lowering taxes is utterly laughable. It's to the point now that it's putting our future financial stablity at grave risk. The late 90's was the last time we had sustainable tax rates which balanced the budget and it also happened during one of our greatest economic expansions in history. Those largely Reagan-inspired tax rates are what we should try to get back to since we know they work for both paying our bills and not hindering economic growth.

Your first point is a poor analogy. Of course, I have to pay my bills. I don’t get to steal from you to pay them, like the government does from me. Here’s a better analogy: If you steal my kids’ lunch money today to pay for your lunch, it doesn’t cost you anything. But, then, tomorrow, when I show up and stand next to my kid when you try to steal his money, but you get wise and decide to let him keep it, that act doesn’t cost you anything. You’ll have to decide to either not eat lunch or try to steal from someone else.

As for tax revenue, have you ever heard of a quadratic function?

Nonetheless, if you understand behaviorial patterns and economics, you’d realize you can actually raise tax revenue by lowering taxes, if your tax decrease creates an incentive for more participation in the economy. To use small numbers, if you tax $100000 of economic activity at 5%, you’ll generate $5000 of tax money. If you raise taxes to 10%, thereby decreasing participation in the economy by 60%, you’ll end up with $4k in tax revenue. It’s not a straight line function.

The issue in this country is not taxation. It’s government spending. If we want to see economic prosperity in this country, we need to get the government out of the way and let the people live freely.

(10-31-2021 07:11 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  

(10-30-2021 10:51 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 08:49 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  A) You don't "pay" for tax cuts. Allowing the people to keep more of their money does not "cost" the government anything. It can't, because the money does not belong to the government in the first place.

Next time you need to pay a bill, see if your strategy of not paying for it will make it go away.

Quote:B) Tax revenues were WAY up last year. You don't have to to raise taxes percentages to generate revenue, if you put the right policies in place that encourage an active and vibrant economy. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/10/12...mic-515792

Under you logic, if we get rid of taxes, suddenly as if by magic we'll have unlimited revenue and a balanced budget. Okay if you're not saying that, then tell me, what exactly is the goldilocks tax rate that maximizes revenue? You can't answer that without pulling an answer out of your a$$. No one can without presenting specific examples in history as evidence. What we do know is that if you don't pay your bills, you're in financial trouble.

We have among the lowest tax rates in the world. Thus any argument that we can squeeze anymore economic activity out of lowering taxes is utterly laughable. It's to the point now that it's putting our future financial stablity at grave risk. The late 90's was the last time we had sustainable tax rates which balanced the budget and it also happened during one of our greatest economic expansions in history. Those largely Reagan-inspired tax rates are what we should try to get back to since we know they work for both paying our bills and not hindering economic growth.

Your first point is a poor analogy. Of course, I have to pay my bills. I don’t get to steal from you to pay them, like the government does from me. Here’s a better analogy: If you steal my kids’ lunch money today to pay for your lunch, it doesn’t cost you anything. But, then, tomorrow, when I show up and stand next to my kid when you try to steal his money, but you get wise and decide to let him keep it, that act doesn’t cost you anything. You’ll have to decide to either not eat lunch or try to steal from someone else.

As for tax revenue, have you ever heard of a quadratic function?

Nonetheless, if you understand behaviorial patterns and economics, you’d realize you can actually raise tax revenue by lowering taxes, if your tax decrease creates an incentive for more participation in the economy. To use small numbers, if you tax $100000 of economic activity at 5%, you’ll generate $5000 of tax money. If you raise taxes to 10%, thereby decreasing participation in the economy by 60%, you’ll end up with $4k in tax revenue. It’s not a straight line function.

The issue in this country is not taxation. It’s government spending. If we want to see economic prosperity in this country, we need to get the government out of the way and let the people live freely.

Unfortunately, we have a group running the federal government that believes the opposite. ……in fact, they want to run all aspects of people’s lives.

Kind of like the head of the manor running the serfs lives………

(10-31-2021 07:11 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  Nonetheless, if you understand behaviorial patterns and economics, you’d realize you can actually raise tax revenue by lowering taxes, if your tax decrease creates an incentive for more participation in the economy. To use small numbers, if you tax $100000 of economic activity at 5%, you’ll generate $5000 of tax money. If you raise taxes to 10%, thereby decreasing participation in the economy by 60%, you’ll end up with $4k in tax revenue. It’s not a straight line function.

If that's not fuzzy math, I don't know what is. Do you have a link to something that more properly explains what you're getting at and in the context of the economy so I have something that isn't so fuzzy to attack? One can't attack a ghost. Just saying it's logarithmic doesn't hide from the fact that you can't tell me what you believe the goldilocks tax rate is other than suggesting it's zero. Or in other words you think anarchy or going back to our caves produces the greatest society.

(10-31-2021 09:20 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(10-31-2021 07:11 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  Nonetheless, if you understand behaviorial patterns and economics, you’d realize you can actually raise tax revenue by lowering taxes, if your tax decrease creates an incentive for more participation in the economy. To use small numbers, if you tax $100000 of economic activity at 5%, you’ll generate $5000 of tax money. If you raise taxes to 10%, thereby decreasing participation in the economy by 60%, you’ll end up with $4k in tax revenue. It’s not a straight line function.

If that's not fuzzy math, I don't know what is.

Economics is always fuzzy math to the left.

By the way, its November.

(11-01-2021 08:28 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-31-2021 09:20 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(10-31-2021 07:11 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  Nonetheless, if you understand behaviorial patterns and economics, you’d realize you can actually raise tax revenue by lowering taxes, if your tax decrease creates an incentive for more participation in the economy. To use small numbers, if you tax $100000 of economic activity at 5%, you’ll generate $5000 of tax money. If you raise taxes to 10%, thereby decreasing participation in the economy by 60%, you’ll end up with $4k in tax revenue. It’s not a straight line function.

If that's not fuzzy math, I don't know what is.

Economics is always fuzzy math to the left.

By the way, its November.

Something tells me you'll struggle to understand this, but because you asked: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp

Here's the thing, you are absolutely welcome to sign your entire check over the government and hope that it will take care of you for the rest of your life. Just keep your hands out of my pocket.

(10-31-2021 09:20 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(10-31-2021 07:11 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  Nonetheless, if you understand behaviorial patterns and economics, you’d realize you can actually raise tax revenue by lowering taxes, if your tax decrease creates an incentive for more participation in the economy. To use small numbers, if you tax $100000 of economic activity at 5%, you’ll generate $5000 of tax money. If you raise taxes to 10%, thereby decreasing participation in the economy by 60%, you’ll end up with $4k in tax revenue. It’s not a straight line function.

If that's not fuzzy math, I don't know what is. Do you have a link to something that more properly explains what you're getting at and in the context of the economy so I have something that isn't so fuzzy to attack? One can't attack a ghost. Just saying it's logarithmic doesn't hide from the fact that you can't tell me what you believe the goldilocks tax rate is other than suggesting it's zero. Or in other words you think anarchy or going back to our caves produces the greatest society.

And you think my money belongs to the ******* government.

(10-31-2021 09:20 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(10-31-2021 07:11 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  Nonetheless, if you understand behaviorial patterns and economics, you’d realize you can actually raise tax revenue by lowering taxes, if your tax decrease creates an incentive for more participation in the economy. To use small numbers, if you tax $100000 of economic activity at 5%, you’ll generate $5000 of tax money. If you raise taxes to 10%, thereby decreasing participation in the economy by 60%, you’ll end up with $4k in tax revenue. It’s not a straight line function.

If that's not fuzzy math, I don't know what is. Do you have a link to something that more properly explains what you're getting at and in the context of the economy so I have something that isn't so fuzzy to attack? One can't attack a ghost. Just saying it's logarithmic doesn't hide from the fact that you can't tell me what you believe the goldilocks tax rate is other than suggesting it's zero. Or in other words you think anarchy or going back to our caves produces the greatest society.

Its very simple. If the tax rate is zero, then the government gets no income. If the tax rate is 100%---there is no incentive for anyone to earn---thus the government again earns zero. Since we know that---Aurthur Laffer developed a theoretical curve that tells us that government revenue increases when the tax rate exceeds zero and rises as we increase the rate---but at some level of taxation---it begins to flatten---finally reaching a point of maximum government revenue. But here's the key---as you move past that inflection point of maximum government revenue---increasing the tax rate actually LOWERS government revenue--because the high tax rate actually adversely affects the motivation of citizens to earn more revenue. If you continue to raise the rate---you eventually get to 100% at which point there is no motivation for citizens to work and government revenue falls to zero.

A good example of that behavior can be seen in the old "luxury tax" passed in the 1990's.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm...story.html

(11-01-2021 10:33 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-31-2021 09:20 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(10-31-2021 07:11 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  Nonetheless, if you understand behaviorial patterns and economics, you’d realize you can actually raise tax revenue by lowering taxes, if your tax decrease creates an incentive for more participation in the economy. To use small numbers, if you tax $100000 of economic activity at 5%, you’ll generate $5000 of tax money. If you raise taxes to 10%, thereby decreasing participation in the economy by 60%, you’ll end up with $4k in tax revenue. It’s not a straight line function.

If that's not fuzzy math, I don't know what is. Do you have a link to something that more properly explains what you're getting at and in the context of the economy so I have something that isn't so fuzzy to attack? One can't attack a ghost. Just saying it's logarithmic doesn't hide from the fact that you can't tell me what you believe the goldilocks tax rate is other than suggesting it's zero. Or in other words you think anarchy or going back to our caves produces the greatest society.

Its very simple. If the tax rate is zero, the the government gets no income. If the tax rate is 100%---there is no incentive for anyone to earn---thus the government again earns zero. Since we know that---Aurthur Laffer developed a theoretical curve that tells us that government revenue increases when the tax rate exceeds zero and rises as we increase the rate---but at some level of taxation---it begins to flatten---finally reaching a point of maximum government revenue. But here's the key---as you move past that inflection point of maximum government revenue---increasing the tax rate actually LOWERS government revenue--because the high tax rate actually adversely affects the motivation of citizens to earn more revenue. If you continue to raise the rate---you eventually get to 100% at which time there is no motivation to for citizens to work and government revenue reaches zero.

A good example of that behavior can be seen in the old "luxury tax" passed in the 1990's.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm...story.html

a more recent example would be the covid year(s)

it’s always - F’KN ALWAYS - #incentivized welfare vs. #socialized welfare

@simpleShite

Here is an article on how Manchin p!ssed in the Dems Wheaties again today:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/01/joe-manc...-bill.html

Highlights:
1. He refused to back Biden’s social spending bill without a detailed analysis of its impacts, delaying Democrats’ plans to pass both bills this week.
2. He accused fellow Democrats of playing “shell games” with the cost of a $1.75 trillion social package
3. He warned that “...holding this [infrastructure] bill hostage is not going to work in getting my support for the reconciliation bill,”