It's the economy, Stupid!

[Yonivore]

So, we have our 4th straight year of a trillion dollar plus deficit and Obama is scratching his head. All the while, he's ready to allow the largest tax increases since World War II to just roll into effect and cripple an already paralyzed economy.


“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today, and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the tax rates…. [A]n economy constrained by high tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance the budget, just as it will never create enough jobs or enough profits.”

Obama in 2009: ‘You Don’t Raise Taxes in a Recession’ (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/video-obama-2009-you-don-t-raise-taxes-recession)


Todd had asked Obama a question from Elkhart, Indiana resident Scott Ferguson who wanted Obama to explain why raising taxes in a recession could be good for the economy. Obama answered that it could not be good for the economy, saying it was just good economics not to raise taxes in a recession.

“First of all, he’s [Ferguson] right. Normally, you don’t raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven’t and why we’ve instead cut taxes. So I guess what I’d say to Scott is – his economics are right. You don’t raise taxes in a recession. We haven’t raised taxes in a recession,” Obama said.


aufAtuTwKlE

The U.S. Tax System: Who Really Pays? (http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ir_22.htm)


Even if most policymakers and members of the public instinctively understand the wisdom of President Kennedy’s words, tax rates are set to go way up, not down, next year because of the scheduled expiration of the Bush tax cuts at the beginning of 2013. The Obamacare law also raises tax rates on wealthy individuals by an additional 3.8 percentage points next year. President Obama and others in Congress argue that these higher tax rates are justified because of the growing consensus that the rich don’t pay their fair share of taxes. Unless we do something to spread the burden more equitably, the argument goes, American society will become more unfair and the economy more unsustainable with each passing year.

At first glance, the tax rate issue seems inseparable from the tax fairness issue, since higher taxes are expected to shift society’s wealth from the private sector to the public sector, where, broadly speaking, it is redistributed to lower-wage earners and the needy. In reality, the people at the bottom of the scale have benefited directly and indirectly from every tax rate reduction dating back to Kennedy’s rate reductions in the early 1960s and through the tax cuts adopted early in the administration of George W. Bush. If those lower rates, along with the Alternative Minimum Tax fix, are allowed to expire, the poor will be burdened even more than the wealthy because the whole economic pie will shrink.

If tax cuts work to expand the economy, the income pie gets larger for everyone. For example, tax rate reductions on businesses may mean more money after-tax for hiring more workers, paying them more, or purchasing more plant and equipment and computers that make workers more productive and efficient. Tax rate reductions on investment expand investment and mean more funds available for new businesses to get off the ground and for existing businesses to expand. Lower estate taxes may mean that family-owned businesses don’t have to be sold at auction at the time of the owner’s death. Everyone benefits.

At stake in the current tax debate in Washington are not only marginal income-tax rates but the tax on capital gains and dividends. Federal taxes are already scheduled to rise by about $700 billion over the next ten years to finance the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. In short, Americans face the largest cumulative tax increase since the end of World War II, which could be a mighty blow to an economy already on the verge of double-dip recession.

The truth is that higher taxes starve the very sectors of the economy that create jobs for everyone. They can, for a little while, reduce the incomes of our top-earning citizens—until these people’s top-notch accountants are able to redirect their investments away from the most efficient, effective uses of their money and into sleepier investments such as government debt, instead of providing the capital that some high-tech company, for example, needs to develop its next tablet.

Below are a series of statements reflecting popular conceptions and misconceptions about the impact of tax rates on economic productivity and fairness. We’ll address these statements (and debunk attendant myths) one at a time.
If you think raising taxes on the wealthy is going to solve our economic woes, you're fucked up in the head.

[clambake]

i hear ya. just when they were ready to trickle down........

[boutons_deux]

So what do you expect Gecko/Ryan to do about the economy?

Hint: look at Ryan's budget (increases the deficit $4T+), which Gecko says is the same as his own.

[LnGrrrR]

Until we get a tax rate of <10% for the highest earners, then America will never be prosperous!

[ElNono]

i hear ya. just when they were ready to trickle down........

:lol

[ElNono]

http://www.prosebeforehos.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/trickle-down-economics.jpg

[boutons_deux]

[QUOTE} If you think raising taxes on the wealthy is going to solve our economic woes, you're fucked up in the head.[/QUOTE]

This doesn't need a conditional clause:

Yoni is fucked up in the head (and maybe elsewhere)

[Yonivore]

For this and other reasons, high tax rates are the worst way to redistribute income to the poor and the middle class. In 1972, when the highest tax rate on the rich was 70 percent and the top capital-gains tax rate was 35 percent, the richest 1 percent of Americans assumed 18 percent of the income-tax burden. Today, with a top income-tax rate of 35 percent and a capital-gains rate of 15 percent, their share is 39 percent, more than twice as much. This is true because, faced with high tax rates, the rich of 40 years ago put more of their income into tax shelters or foreign countries. They invested less, and they worked less. And the rest of us suffered during the years of stagflation—as we will again, if rates are raised.
Why is this statement less true, today, than it was 40 years ago?

[CosmicCowboy]

These fuckers that talk about historically low tax rates conveniently forget that when we had the high tax rates we had shitloads of deductions. We gave those up as a "tax simplification" in exchange for lower rates. Now the cocksuckers want those high rates again without the deductions...as long as it doesn't affect THEM.

[ElNono]

The tax rates were higher and not a drag on the economy in the late 90's...

The reality is that all these recent tax cuts are being subsidized with more debt, and they've nothing to show for them. There's no political will from either side to "starve the beast", which at this point is as much of a fairy tale as "trickle down" and "welfare queen"...

You can thank St Ronnie for the "tax simplification" con job too...

[George Gervin's Afro]

hasn't the gop had the house the last 2 years....and we have run deficits during these 2 yrs as well...

just sayin

[ElNono]

hasn't the gop had the house the last 2 years....and we have run deficits during these 2 yrs as well...

just sayin

Congress is shit. Both sides. Yoni will love to remind you how Reid won't reach across the aisle and basically give the GOP everything they want. But it's a two way street. Neither side is interested in working with the other.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Congress is shit. Both sides. Yoni will love to remind you how Reid won't reach across the aisle and basically give the GOP everything they want. But it's a two way street. Neither side is interested in working with the other.

it's clear there needs to be cooperation across the aisle.. so when there is none then both sides deserve the blame... some are reay to blame one side knowing full well it's not intellectually honest charge

[Spurminator]

In 1972, when the highest tax rate on the rich was 70 percent and the top capital-gains tax rate was 35 percent, the richest 1 percent of Americans assumed 18 percent of the income-tax burden. Today, with a top income-tax rate of 35 percent and a capital-gains rate of 15 percent, their share is 39 percent, more than twice as much. This is true because, faced with high tax rates, the rich of 40 years ago put more of their income into tax shelters or foreign countries.

Unless there's something to back this up, I would say this is a misrepresentation of why the rich's income tax burden is higher. I would guess the main reason the rich pay a higher share of income tax today because they have a higher share of the total income than they did in 1972.

[mercos]

Why is this statement less true, today, than it was 40 years ago?

Because of the boom of the 1990s, which came after tax increases. A 4% increase in the top marginal tax rate is not going to tank the economy or fix the budget problem. It will help the budget problem though. Ultimately, we are also going to need massive defense cuts and entitlement reform to get the budget under control, or their future growth will bury us. Asking the rich to pay what they paid in the go-go 90s is not asking to much though.

[Yonivore]

The tax rates were higher and not a drag on the economy in the late 90's...

The reality is that all these recent tax cuts are being subsidized with more debt, and they've nothing to show for them. There's no political will from either side to "starve the beast", which at this point is as much of a fairy tale as "trickle down" and "welfare queen"...

You can thank St Ronnie for the "tax simplification" con job too...
Federal spending is being subsidized by debt; the tax cuts resulted in greater federal revenue and, therefore, paid for themselves.


http://www.manhattan-institute.org/assets/images/ir_22f6.gif

[Yonivore]

Because of the boom of the 1990s, which came after tax increases. A 4% increase in the top marginal tax rate is not going to tank the economy or fix the budget problem. It will help the budget problem though. Ultimately, we are also going to need massive defense cuts and entitlement reform to get the budget under control, or their future growth will bury us. Asking the rich to pay what they paid in the go-go 90s is not asking to much though.
They did that comparison. The Bush tax cuts resulted in more revenue than did the Clinton tax hikes.


http://www.manhattan-institute.org/assets/images/ir_22f6.gif

[Yonivore]

hasn't the gop had the house the last 2 years....and we have run deficits during these 2 yrs as well...

just sayin
And they've passed several budgets over which the Senate (i.e. Harry Reid) refuses to deliberate.

We've run deficits because Obama just keeps writing checks without a budget plan.

[Yonivore]

Congress is shit. Both sides. Yoni will love to remind you how Reid won't reach across the aisle and basically give the GOP everything they want. But it's a two way street. Neither side is interested in working with the other.
The Republican Vice Presidential candidate worked with Democrat Ron Wyden on a plan to save the economy. Ryan has been hailed as just such a person, someone willing to reach across the aisle and work toward compromise -- BY THE LEFT -- until he was named the VP candidate, that is.

[Yonivore]

As some of you have pointed out;


IT'S NOT THE TAX POLICY
IT'S THE SPENDING!

This country has got to cut spending. Period. There isn't a tax scheme out there that will close the deficit or reduce the debt if we don't fix programs that -- looking out into the future -- are unfunded to the tune of 10's of trillions of dollars.

President Obama proposes to "reinvest" $716 billion dollars from Medicare (principally from Medicare Advantage) to fund his monstrous Health Care plan. And, to plug that hole in Medicare, he's proposing a 15-member death panel to ration health care services to current Medicare recipients. He has absolutely no plan for reigning in the exploding liabilities that will mount under Medicare going in to the future.

Presidential Candidate Romney proposes to leave current Medicare alone for those 55 and older, repeal Obamacare (eliminating the need to rob $716 billion) and find a private/public solution for returning Medicare to solvency. I hear it's not much different than what President Clinton was proposing in the 90's.

Romney/Ryan 2012!

[Th'Pusher]

:lol The top tax rate in 1963 was 90%.

WRT the Bush tax cuts, how many jobs were created under the bush administration? Hint - in his 8 years in office fewer jobs were created than in the last 29 month under O.

[ElNono]

Federal spending is being subsidized by debt; the tax cuts resulted in greater federal revenue and, therefore, paid for themselves.

But they did not. As a matter of fact, revenue fell and pretty sharply.

Receipts grow over time as a function of GDP growth, since it expands the tax base. That's why comparing year X dollar revenue with year Y dollar revenue, even if adjusted for inflation, means nothing if you don't know how much the tax base grew between year X and year Y.

For example, during the Clinton years, the year-to-year receipt growth was about $139 billion dollars (FY 2005 adjusted):

billion dollars (FY 2005 adjusted):
1997: $1,889.3
1998: $2,040.2
1999: $2,135.4
2000: $2,309.2

after the 1st round of tax cuts, revenue couldn't even catch up with the growth:
2001: $2,214.3
2002: $2,027.9

after the 2nd round, it killed receipts even further but growth started to catch up:
2003: $1,900.5
2004: $1,949.3
2005: $2,153.6
2006: $2,324.6

And so we arrive at basically the 'same' amount of money on receipts as in FY 2000.

For the tax cuts to pay "themselves" they would've needed to stimulate the economy in such a way where in 2006 you would've had the same receipt income that you had prior to the cuts, adjusted for the annual growth.

In other words, at $139 billion annual growth pre-cut, the revenue on 2006 should've been $2,309.2 + (6*$139) = $3,143.2 (FY 2005 dollars).

Which means by 2006, the tax cuts actually cost $818.6 billions (FY 2005 dollars).

It gets worse. Because after 2008 GDP fell rather sharply, receipts obviously tanked too.



http://www.manhattan-institute.org/assets/images/ir_22f6.gif

It's a phony table because of what I explained above, plus it has a few other errors. Here's the source that was used:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist01z3.xls

And that I used to run the numbers above.

[mercos]

They did that comparison. The Bush tax cuts resulted in more revenue than did the Clinton tax hikes.


http://www.manhattan-institute.org/assets/images/ir_22f6.gif

The revenue could have been higher during the Bush years if the Clinton era tax levels were in place. I notice that you conveniently use numbers that began in 2003 and end in 2007. Those years happen to coincide with the artificial housing bubble, which predictably collapsed on itself in 2008. Revenues collapsed in 2008, which created the trillion dollar deficits we have now. When Obama stepped into office he was already in a trillion dollar hole.

There is simply no evidence that the tax cuts themselves led to greater revenue, and that more revenue could not have been obtained with a higher tax rate. You are trying to argue that a 4% difference in taxes on the very wealthy, who have taken on a disproportionate amount of the wealth in this country over the past 30+ years, will make a big difference economically. Unfortunately for you, both economists and a majority of Americans disagree.

[ElNono]

The Republican Vice Presidential candidate worked with Democrat Ron Wyden on a plan to save the economy. Ryan has been hailed as just such a person, someone willing to reach across the aisle and work toward compromise -- BY THE LEFT -- until he was named the VP candidate, that is.

Wyden himself said he worked on policy papers, not legislation. Apparently when it was actual time to put legislation together, the echo chamber went in full effect.

[CosmicCowboy]

:lol The top tax rate in 1963 was 90%.

WRT the Bush tax cuts, how many jobs were created under the bush administration? Hint - in his 8 years in office fewer jobs were created than in the last 29 month under O.

In 1963 my dad bought a 500 acre ranch and paid for it virtually 100% with tax deductions/credits.

Sure as hell can't do that now.

Only intellectually dishonest people insist on comparing apples and oranges.

[ElNono]

As some of you have pointed out;

This country has got to cut spending. Period.

Don't disagree, but both parties embrace big government. You and Ryan's voting record ain't kidding anybody.

[CosmicCowboy]

There were a million ways for smart people to shelter their money.

90%?

:lmao:lmao

[ElNono]

In 1963 my dad bought a 500 acre ranch and paid for it virtually 100% with tax deductions/credits.

Sure as hell can't do that now.

Only intellectually dishonest people insist on comparing apples and oranges.

I agree with this too. But the whole deduction thing for lower rates was Reagan's doing, and he was another guy that didn't give a shit about running deficits.

[ElNono]

Was it Cheney that said "Reagan proved deficits don't matter"?

[boutons_deux]

There were a million ways for smart people to shelter their money.

90%?

:lmao:lmao

I'm sure there are a lot more ways now than in 1940-1965. The tax law is lot more complex with a lot more deductions. And tax lawyer/tax accountant sector is also a lot bigger.

[Th'Pusher]

In 1963 my dad bought a 500 acre ranch and paid for it virtually 100% with tax deductions/credits.

Sure as hell can't do that now.

Only intellectually dishonest people insist on comparing apples and oranges.

It was in reference to Yoni's JFK quote in the OP, what JFK was saying about tax rates has absolutely nothing to to with tax rates today. The quote was idiotic.

I'll ask again, how many Jobs were created under Bush II administration when taxes were drastically cut on the wealthy? That is your argument, is it not? Cut taxes and jobs will be created because of the additional investment. BTW - we are still living under the Bush tax cuts.

[Wild Cobra]

But they did not. As a matter of fact, revenue fell and pretty sharply.

Receipts grow over time as a function of GDP growth, since it expands the tax base. That's why comparing year X dollar revenue with year Y dollar revenue, even if adjusted for inflation, means nothing if you don't know how much the tax base grew between year X and year Y.

For example, during the Clinton years, the year-to-year receipt growth was about $139 billion dollars (FY 2005 adjusted):

billion dollars (FY 2005 adjusted):
1997: $1,889.3
1998: $2,040.2
1999: $2,135.4
2000: $2,309.2

after the 1st round of tax cuts, revenue couldn't even catch up with the growth:
2001: $2,214.3
2002: $2,027.9

after the 2nd round, it killed receipts even further but growth started to catch up:
2003: $1,900.5
2004: $1,949.3
2005: $2,153.6
2006: $2,324.6

And so we arrive at basically the 'same' amount of money on receipts as in FY 2000.

For the tax cuts to pay "themselves" they would've needed to stimulate the economy in such a way where in 2006 you would've had the same receipt income that you had prior to the cuts, adjusted for the annual growth.

In other words, at $139 billion annual growth pre-cut, the revenue on 2006 should've been $2,309.2 + (6*$139) = $3,143.2 (FY 2005 dollars).

Which means by 2006, the tax cuts actually cost $818.6 billions (FY 2005 dollars).

It gets worse. Because after 2008 GDP fell rather sharply, receipts obviously tanked too.



It's a phony table because of what I explained above, plus it has a few other errors. Here's the source that was used:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist01z3.xls

And that I used to run the numbers above.
You forgot the end of the Y2K scare.

Don't you realize the effect of that?

[ElNono]

You forgot the end of the Y2K scare.

Don't you realize the effect of that?

Please quantify the effect of that on the economy...

[Wild Cobra]

There were a million ways for smart people to shelter their money.

90%?

:lmao:lmao
It was 91% in 1963.

What these liberals don't realize id the higher rate they tax people, the more wealth the rich accumulate.

If you can write off a purchase and effectively reduce it's cost 91% by paying that much less in taxes on its value, it only costs you 9%.

[Wild Cobra]

Please quantify the effect of that on the economy...
You know I can't but it was tremendous. You cannot act as if it had no impact. That would be dishonest.

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm sure there are a lot more ways now than in 1940-1965. The tax law is lot more complex with a lot more deductions. And tax lawyer/tax accountant sector is also a lot bigger.

stupid is as stupid does.

classic example.

[Wild Cobra]

1963 long form (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/f1040--1963.pdf)

If only things were so simple again.

[Yonivore]

Don't disagree, but both parties embrace big government. You and Ryan's voting record ain't kidding anybody.
So, why is Obama wanting to raise taxes?

Cut spending. We should all be insisting on government to cut spending.

[Th'Pusher]

So, why is Obama wanting to raise taxes?

Cut spending. We should all be insisting on government to cut spending.

I belive it should be about 3:1 cuts to revenue increases. the issue is people like you who will not take 10:1 cuts to increase. The intransigence of people like you, Paul ryan and Grover Norquist are the the problem tbh...

[Yonivore]

Wyden himself said he worked on policy papers, not legislation. Apparently when it was actual time to put legislation together, the echo chamber went in full effect.
Romney misspoke when he called it legislation but, it was a bit more than "policy papers."


http://imgv2-3.scribdassets.com/img/word_document/75770991/255x300/365d58c241/1341962038 (http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/wydenryan.pdf)
CLICK ON IMAGE TO SEE WYDEN/RYAN PLAN

Much of which is still embodied in the Romney/Ryan plan and modeled after the Clinton plan.

[Yonivore]

There is simply no evidence that the tax cuts themselves led to greater revenue,...
Except that every time it's been tried, it's increased revenues; Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush.

[ElNono]

Cut spending. We should all be insisting on government to cut spending.

Neither team wants to cut spending. Both teams already had full control of government and both love themselves more deficit.

They're all big government: Ryan, Romney, Barry... Ryan already voted for unfunded liabilities like Medicare Plan D, Romney walks in stating he's going to increase military spending, Barry... well... he wants to keep doing what he's doing.

But this isn't new. Reagan loved his deficits and living on the govt credit card too.

[Wild Cobra Kai]

Actually, it's Akin.

[ElNono]

Romney misspoke when he called it legislation but, it was a bit more than "policy papers."

That's all it was, a proposal. This got included as part of a much larger budget proposal which Wyden had nothing to do with.


Much of which is still embodied in the Romney/Ryan plan and modeled after the Clinton plan.

Actually, if you go by mittromney.com, not really. There's no longer a "choice" there. It's simply a voucher program.

[ElNono]

Except that every time it's been tried, it's increased revenues; Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush.

The only thing it increased is deficits.

[Yonivore]

That's all it was, a proposal. This got included as part of a much larger budget proposal which Wyden had nothing to do with.
You're right but, the point was to demonstrate -- on Medicare, at least -- there has been bi-partisan work.


Actually, if you go by mittromney.com, not really. There's no longer a "choice" there. It's simply a voucher program.
From www.mittromney.com


Key Elements of Mitt’s Plan


Nothing changes for current seniors or those nearing retirement


Medicare is reformed as a premium support system, meaning that existing spending is repackaged as a fixed-amount benefit to each senior that he or she can use to purchase an insurance plan


All insurance plans must offer coverage at least comparable to what Medicare provides today


If seniors choose more expensive plans, they will have to pay the difference between the support amount and the premium price; if they choose less expensive plans, they can use any leftover support to pay other medical expenses like co-pays and deductibles

“Traditional” fee-for-service Medicare will be offered by the government as an insurance plan, meaning that seniors can purchase that form of coverage if they prefer it; however, if it costs the government more to provide that service than it costs private plans to offer their versions, then the premiums charged by the government will have to be higher and seniors will have to pay the difference to enroll in the traditional Medicare option


Lower income seniors will receive more generous support to ensure that they can afford coverage; wealthier seniors will receive less support


Competition among plans to provide high quality service while charging low premiums will hold costs down while also improving the quality of coverage enjoyed by seniors

[Yonivore]

The only thing it increased is deficits.
That would be a manifestation of out-of-control spending.

Increased revenues rarely, if ever, lead to deficits.

[ElNono]

“Traditional” fee-for-service Medicare will be offered by the government as an insurance plan, meaning that seniors can purchase that form of coverage if they prefer it; however, if it costs the government more to provide that service than it costs private plans to offer their versions, then the premiums charged by the government will have to be higher and seniors will have to pay the difference to enroll in the traditional Medicare option

What part you don't understand? Government will issue vouchers for a set amount, and if it pays for govt medicare good, if it doesn't seniors pony up the difference. It's a voucher program. There's no option NOT to receive a voucher.

[Capt Bringdown]

I'll start believing in glibertarian/conservative/neoliberals' zeal to reduce the size of government when they start wailing about this with the same enthusiasm and urgency in which they attack social spending:


At the height of the American occupation, in the face of Sunni and Shiite insurgencies and a bloody civil war, the Pentagon built 505 bases there, ranging from micro-outposts to mega-bases the size of small American towns -- in one case, with an airport that was at least as busy as Chicago’s O’Hare International. As it happened, during all but the last days of those long, disastrous years of war, Americans could have had no idea how many bases had been built, using taxpayer dollars, in Iraq. Estimates in the press ranged, on rare occasions, up to about 300. Only as U.S. troops prepared to leave was that 505 figure released by the military, without any fanfare whatsoever. Startlingly large, it was simply accepted by reporters who evidently found it too unimpressive to highlight.

And here’s an allied figure that we still don’t have: to this day, no one outside the Pentagon has the faintest idea what it cost to build those bases, no less maintain them, or in the end abandon them to the Iraqi military, to the fate of ghost towns, or simply to be looted and stripped. We have no figures, not even ballpark ones, about what the Pentagon paid crony corporations like KBR to construct and maintain them.

Why, in our zeal to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, we never considered spending a fraction as much to rebuild Detroit, New Orleans, or Cleveland (projects that, unlike Afghanistan and Iraq in their heyday, have never enjoyed widespread support)?

Here’s the bottom line: a nation spends its resources on what’s important to it. Failed reconstruction elsewhere turns out to be more important to us than successful reconstruction here at home. Such is the American way of empire.

Imperial Reconstruction and Its Discontents (http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175583/tomgram%3A_peter_van_buren%2C_imperial_reconstruct ion_and_its_discontents/)

[ElNono]

That would be a manifestation of out-of-control spending.

Or a reduction of receipts without a similar reduction in spending. It doesn't have to be 'out of control'.

All that said, both teams love themselves bigger and bigger government.

[Yonivore]

What part you don't understand? Government will issue vouchers for a set amount, and if it pays for govt medicare good, if it doesn't seniors pony up the difference. It's a voucher program. There's no option NOT to receive a voucher.
55 and older untouched. This already beats the Obama plan.

And, if you read it closely, it's only if government Medicare costs more than a private vendor that seniors, wanting to stay on Medicare, have to pony up the difference.

[Yonivore]

Or a reduction of receipts without a similar reduction in spending. It doesn't have to be 'out of control'.
But, the tax cuts have always resulted in increased receipts.


All that said, both teams love themselves bigger and bigger government.
That said, tax cuts aren't to blame.

[ElNono]

55 and older untouched. This already beats the Obama plan.

lol goalpost move

And 'untouched' means with the same cuts as ACA. Same shit while fucking up the younger generations. I'm not '55 and older', so I really don't give a shit if that stays the same or not.

[Yonivore]

lol goalpost move
No, I added a paragraph. No goalpost was moved. Seniors can stay on the current plan without any increase cost so long as the current plan is less expensive than a private plan.


And 'untouched' means with the same cuts as ACA.
A repeal of Obamacare will put the $716 billion back.


Same shit while fucking up the younger generations. I'm not '55 and older', so I really don't give a shit if that stays the same or not.
I'm just below 55, and I would prefer the voucher plan. Hell, it beats the Obama plan of just driving it into the ground with nothing being available when I'm ready to retire.

[ElNono]

But, the tax cuts have always resulted in increased receipts.

Certain tax hikes, like Clinton's, have too. So it isn't a property of just 'cuts'.

The question is: have the cuts spurred the growth necessary to outpace the rates pre-cut? And the answer to that in every instance is NO.


That said, tax cuts aren't to blame.

Tax cuts financed strictly by debt are simply irresponsible and another form of welfare.

[Yonivore]

Certain tax hikes, like Clinton's, have too. So it isn't a property of just 'cuts'.
Not at the same rate.


The question is: have the cuts spurred the growth necessary to outpace the rates pre-cut? And the answer to that in every instance is NO.
Well, if government spends it all, that'll fuck things up.


Tax cuts financed strictly by debt are simply irresponsible and another form of welfare.
Tax cuts resulting in an increase in revenue pay for themselves, it's the spending that's being paid for by debt.

[ElNono]

No, I added a paragraph. No goalpost was moved. Seniors can stay on the current plan without any increase cost so long as the current plan is less expensive than a private plan.

So the increased healthcare costs is shifted to seniors. It's a terrible plan and it doesn't address cost at all. Barry's ACA is crap, but it's 100x better than that shit.


A repeal of Obamacare will put the $716 billion back.

But under Ryan's plan those $716 billion go away again.


I'm just below 55, and I would prefer the voucher plan.

I don't. At all. I don't think ACA is the solution either, but it can be tweaked.
Anything that could mean I have to keep forking off money past 65+ is a no go.

[ElNono]

Not at the same rate.

No, as I've shown, cuts didn't prop the economy as expected and thus reduced the growth rate. The country was actually growing faster with the old, higher tax rates.


Well, if government spends it all, that'll fuck things up.

Well, that's what both (D) and (R) do...


Tax cuts resulting in an increase in revenue pay for themselves, it's the spending that's being paid for by debt.

As explained, the only "pay for themselves" if the revenue increase outpaces the the revenue growth pre-cuts. In the case of the Bush cuts, that was not the case.

[CGD]

i hear ya. just when they were ready to trickle down........

lol