Republican Tax Cuts For The Rich And The Debt Crisis

You support something that will never happen. The rich don't have enough money to support all the spending democrats want to do

 

They always generate more the Trump tax cuts combined with closing some tax loopholes, simplifying the tax code brought revenue to the highest percent of GDP ever.

 

Perhaps had he need not released 5000 imprisoned Taliban including their leaders that might have changed things a bit too. The Afghan army might have stood up to a much weaker enemy.

 

I'd like to see you go on record as supporting Trump pulling our forces down to less than 3,000 the way Trump did.

 

I am glad we are out of that mess. We should have left years earlier.

 

Uh oh.

Whataboutism Alert!

 

With a line like that you should write Republican campaign speeches and campaign literature. You are wasting your time here., You need to be getting the word out.

The voters have the right to learn what Republican politicians say to each other when they do not think anyone else is listening.

 

Want to try again?

Even ChatGPT got it mostly right:

"Jimmy Carter appointed Paul Volcker as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve in 1979 due to Volcker's reputation as a respected and capable economist. At the time, the United States was facing high inflation, which was a major concern for the economy. Carter believed that Volcker had the expertise and determination to tackle inflation and stabilize the economy.

Volcker was known for his strong stance against inflation and his commitment to maintaining price stability. He had previously served as the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and had a reputation for being tough on inflation. Carter saw Volcker as someone who could implement the necessary monetary policies to curb inflation and restore confidence in the economy.

Carter's decision to appoint Volcker was also influenced by the belief that a strong and independent Federal Reserve was crucial for managing the economy effectively. Volcker was seen as a nonpartisan and independent figure who could make tough decisions without succumbing to political pressures.

Under Volcker's leadership, the Federal Reserve implemented tight monetary policies, including raising interest rates to unprecedented levels, which helped to combat inflation. Although these policies initially led to a recession, they eventually succeeded in bringing down inflation rates and setting the stage for a period of sustained economic growth.

Overall, Carter appointed Volcker as Fed Chair because he believed that Volcker's expertise, determination, and independence made him the right person to address the pressing issue of inflation and stabilize the economy."​

The short version is that Carter knew Volcker would jack up interest rates, cause a recession and stay the course until we wrung out inflation.

If your economics instructors didn't also address the politics, you were shortchanged.

 

I don't deal in Republican or Democrat. What I do know is the idea that any program that is based on what other people pay into it is not a sound idea or policy. Matter of fact, programs depending on those future contributors is generally illegal, and now the government has a squeeze coming on.

 

Bingo! Yet another instance of Trump recklessness.

I believe Joe should had brought back enough forces to cover our withdrawal. Yes, Republicans would have attacked, no doubt along with some Democrats who long opposed our involvement in Afghanistan, but a complete, orderly withdrawal would have answered the critics.

 

Hello, Gary

That's an interesting observation, and I'll tell you why. First, many of the very wealthy are Democrats. Second, who do you think really controls Congress? The little guys who can contribute 50 bucks to a campaign? Or is it really very wealthy people who contribute a lot of money? I think we both know, don't we? I think we know that the very wealthy can and do buy a lot of influence in Congress. There's an old saying (I don't know who said it first) that goes like this: "Things are the way they are because someone wants them that way." When you look closely at our tax laws, and you look at the massive amount of the nation's wealth owned by so few people, that old saying speaks truth.

Congress reasons that it is not in their interests to cut spending. Never mind their words. Their actions tell the story. And no matter how intelligent and informed and sensible a regular private person may be, Congress is not going to listen to that person if they are not in that elite class of very wealthy donors. So what we need to do to get Congress to change its spending habits is to get that elite class to start pushing them to do it. I can guarantee you that if we up the tax rate on personal incomes by 5% starting with money earned over $1 million, and then another 5% for every million over that up to a cap of about 70%, magically, Congress, including Democrats, will experience a strange new desire to control spending and balance the budget. Especially if it is written into the tax law that these higher rates can be eased only in conjunction with a balanced federal budget and that they will go back up if the budget doesn't balance.

I have heard and I understand all the arguments against raising the rates on the very wealthy. Trust me on that one. But quite frankly, in my opinion, the good of the nation is served by a balanced budget. And that good outweighs the good served by keeping the tax rate low on someone's 10th million earned that year. It just does.

 

@AARguy was pretending he has expertise in economics. You, it seems, seized on a quotation error so you could make a snarky comment.

 

hypocritical comment alert

 

all well and good but you run into this problem as the late great Dame Thatcher noted

Socialism sounds good until you run out of other peoples' money.

and if the rich are always subject to more and more taxes to keep up with government pandering-sooner or later they will hide or move their assets.

 

we aren't talking about gun studies. what is interesting is that almost every anti gun study comes from people who were first left wing activists-like the moron who runs GVpedia. The pro gun studies have lots of people who are involved heavily in the shooting sports but also have a bunch-such as Lott and Paxton Quigley-who started off ANTI GUN

what we are talking about is MSM ENTERTAINMENT shows that constantly bash the NRA and gun ownership

 

most people want others to pay more taxes. WTF does that have to do with anything other than envy? most people want to be rich too.

what did SCREWFACE say in Seagal's movie Marked for Death?

 

Source? 50K/yr means they will pay taxes. The vast majority of them. And many 30k/yr as well. Unless they have large family or deductions.

 

Tell me would you expect to be able to create more jobs when the LFPR is low and unemployment high versus the LFPR being high and unemployment low?
Which economic situation would you prefer?

AGAIN Presidents are not kings in this country, you are from this country right?

 

You missed the austerity and sequester programs which cut the Obama/Dem deficits of +$1,000B in half?

 

We won the war against Saddam and against the Taliban and they were paid for. As I already noted the special appropriations of the war in FY2007 was $88B and the deficit that year was a paltry $161B. Then the Dems took back the Congress and two years later they had it at $1,400B. National Defense is the HIGHEST priority spending for the federal government.

I have never thought the Dems were concerned with with balanced budgets as they are proving now.

Again which side do you support in the current budget battle the one that wants to limit spending growth and get us back on a sound fiscal policy or the side that wants never ending always increases deficits and debt?

 

Go talk to Barnie Frank who was the leader on Fannie and Freddie in the Congress. Bush's plan was to increase the ability for new and low income buyers to save for down payments which would have been sound policy. That was rejected. It was the Dems who led the way on risky borrowers and of course those risky loans had to be bundled with good loans to get investors to buy them. Beyond that residential housing is a single digit component of GDP, barely a blip. Bush solved the lending crisis with TARP which was paid back IN FULL WITH INTEREST AND EARLY. We MADE MONEY off of TARP it did not contribute to the national debt.

We had exploding revenues and in FY2005 produced a RECORD 15% increase in tax revenues and a paltry $161B deficit. Reconcile that with your cite.

The one mistake Bush and the Reps made was a phase in from 2001 to 2006 the lower rates. In 2003 they sped that up and fully implimented them and revenues EXPLODED. Are you denying that and the fact that the deficit fell to just $161B? Stop citing from 2006, why do you excluded 2007?


1990 1,032.0 4.1% <- Democrats tax increase agreed to by Bush for spending cuts the Dems never passed
1991 1,055.0 2.2%
1992 1,091.2 3.4%
1993 1,154.3 5.8% <- Clinton tax increase signed AUGUST 1993 however
"Taxpayers who owed additional 1993 taxes due to the
OBRA93 tax rate increases were given the option of
deferring payment of two-thirds of the tax that was in
excess of the tax that would have been owed at the 31
percent rate. Half of the deferral taxes were to be paid in
1995 and the remaining half in 1996 [2].
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/93inintrts.pdf
1994 1,258.6 9.0%
1995 1,351.8 7.4% <- Even with the differed tax revenues revenue growth slow
1996 1,453.1 7.5%
1997 1,579.2 8.7% -> Gingrich/Kasich tax rate cuts
1998 1,721.7 9.0%
1999 1,827.5 6.1%
2000 2,025.2 10.8%
2001 1,991.1 -2% - recession/dot.com bust/9-11
2002 1,853.1 -7%
2003 1,782.3 -4% Bush tax rate cuts begin implementation
2004 1,880.1 5% Bush tax rate cuts fully implemented
2005 2,153.6 15%
2006 2,406.9 12%
2007 2,568.0 7% <- Dems take back the Congress
2008 2,524.0 -2% - recession
2009 2,105.0 -17%
2010 2,162.7 3%
2011 2,303.5 7% <- Republicans take back the house
2012 2,445.0 6%
2013 2,775.1 13%
2014 3,021.5 9% Obama Capital Gains tax increase and surcharge
2015 3,249.9 8%

False as the OMB data proves.

 

My solid majority trumps your within the margin of error and note from yours

"On the preferred approach to raising the debt ceiling, three-quarters of Democrats want the limit raised first without cuts, while two-thirds of Republicans said they want cuts tied to it. Independents were split, but a slight plurality – 48% to 45% – said they want to see cuts."

 

I have been quite clear in what I have said.

 

Republicans are responsible for the pandemic shutting down US industry.

 

Of course I can they use a made up number based on unrealized gains. I use the hard data as reported by CBO not conjecture and postulations from liberal economist set out to prove an outcome not merely observe what it was and report it. BTW those economist do not include the EITC in their calculations as does the CBO which proves those lower income groups pay NO federal income tax and in fact MAKE MONEY off the tax system.