Americans Paid $90 Billion MORE In Taxes After Republican Tax Cut

[LV426]

Agreed. I did not favor the tax cuts without big spending cuts which are needed with or without a tax cut.

I don't understand why spending has to be cut in order for tax cuts to "work"?

Shouldn't tax cuts work on their own? Isn't the philosophy that cutting taxes puts more money in the pockets of consumers to spend? What does government spending have to do with that? Nothing, of course. You're just ideologically opposed to government spending, but lack the courage, will, and support to repeal it through conventional legislation. So you seize on a fake, manufactured budget crisis -CAUSED BY TAX CUTS- as the excuse to cut the spending you have hated all along.

No one is fooled by this game anymore since that same play has been run by Conservatives and their enablers since 1980.

 

[LV426]

And Democrats push for irresponsible spending programs--free college, forgiving student loans, etc.

What the flying fuck are you talking about?

How are those programs "irresponsible" when they're funded by tax increases on the wealthy?

You are such a fucking sophist.

 

[LV426]

Tax cuts and spending programs are all aimed at getting votes even if we think they are for a good cause. Republicans support anything Trump does even when liberal and Democrats just want to tax the rich to pay for everything.

So here's the inherent stupidity of Flash;

He frames Democratic proposals as "free" knowing that they are funded by tax increases, primarily tax increases on the wealthy.

So Flash does the work of Conservative liars by falsely framing things either because Flash is a fucking idiot, or a fucking sophist.

See, Flash needs to say Democratic programs are "irresponsible" because he recognizes the irresponsibility of Conservatism but needs to maintain a BoTh SiDeS aRe ThE SaMe because his mind cannot conceive of the fact that balance doesn't exist in politics, only in the minds of those who are seeking to enable Conservatism's fascist tendencies and policies or people who are just simply fucking lazy.

 

[LV426]

Democrats just want to tax the rich to pay for everything.

So then this...

And Democrats push for irresponsible spending programs

...is completely inaccurate!

It's actually fiscally responsible since Democrats are saying how their programs would be funded.

So you say they're irresponsible, but then you turn around in literally the same post to show that it's not irresponsible at all because they're funded by taxes on the rich.

You're such a fucking sophist that you don't even realize it, do you?

 

[LV426]

higher wages for people who work........nothing for those who don't......sorry it didn't help you.......get a job......

So you believe that only the 1% work hard enough to justify wage increases, but the bottom 99% do not work hard?

 

[Flash]

What the flying fuck are you talking about?

How are those programs "irresponsible" when they're funded by tax increases on the wealthy?

You are such a fucking sophist.

Favoring programs because somebody else is paying for them is irresponsible. Giving money to your wealthy friends for political support is not good policy.

Encouraging people to be irresponsible for taking loans they don't have to pay back is bad policy. Supporting fly-by-night private for-profit colleges that close down before students can complete their programs is bad policy.

Government debt that is too high slows down the economy.

Increasing taxes on one group to pay for the programs of others leads to efforts to avoid paying such high taxes and creates irresponsible citizens thinking they are entitled to free government benefits.

The higher the percentage of GDP spent by the government slows the economy.

 

[Flash]

So then this...



...is completely inaccurate!

It's actually fiscally responsible since Democrats are saying how their programs would be funded.

So you say they're irresponsible, but then you turn around in literally the same post to show that it's not irresponsible at all because they're funded by taxes on the rich.

You're such a fucking sophist that you don't even realize it, do you?

Because anybody who follows politics know the Democrats will not raise taxes enough to pay for all those programs. It will hurt too many of their wealthy supporters--thus, irresponsible. Plus those programs only make the problems worse because they incentivize the wasteful spending.

 

[Flash]

I don't understand why spending has to be cut in order for tax cuts to "work"?

Shouldn't tax cuts work on their own? Isn't the philosophy that cutting taxes puts more money in the pockets of consumers to spend? What does government spending have to do with that? Nothing, of course. You're just ideologically opposed to government spending, but lack the courage, will, and support to repeal it through conventional legislation. So you seize on a fake, manufactured budget crisis -CAUSED BY TAX CUTS- as the excuse to cut the spending you have hated all along.

No one is fooled by this game anymore since that same play has been run by Conservatives and their enablers since 1980.

Simple. If you cut taxes without spending cuts you increase the deficit and debt---simple economics. You don't want consumers spending too much borrowed money--it eventually leads to reduced spending on important programs because a larger portion of the budget goes to interest on the debt and leads to higher inflation.

I'm not ideologically opposed to government spending---only wasteful government spending--like the $60 billion Medicare says is fraud.

 

[Flash]

So here's the inherent stupidity of Flash;

He frames Democratic proposals as "free" knowing that they are funded by tax increases, primarily tax increases on the wealthy.

So Flash does the work of Conservative liars by falsely framing things either because Flash is a fucking idiot, or a fucking sophist.

See, Flash needs to say Democratic programs are "irresponsible" because he recognizes the irresponsibility of Conservatism but needs to maintain a BoTh SiDeS aRe ThE SaMe because his mind cannot conceive of the fact that balance doesn't exist in politics, only in the minds of those who are seeking to enable Conservatism's fascist tendencies and policies or people who are just simply fucking lazy.

They are free to the people getting the benefits. When somebody else is paying there is no reason to keep spending down.

The hostility is high in you this morning. As usual, your post has more personal insults, vulgarity, and hatred than any logical or useful information.

Your hostility usually increases as the day progressives---by tonight your blood pressure (and hatred) will be sky high.

 

[LV426]

Favoring programs because somebody else is paying for them is irresponsible.

I don't favor the programs because the rich are taxed to pay for it; I favor the programs because they're necessary.

 

[LV426]

Giving money to your wealthy friends for political support is not good policy.

WHAT ARE YOU BABBLING ABOUT?

How is taxing the wealthy to pay for everyone's health care "giving money to your wealthy friends"?

Can you have an honest discussion at all? Why are you so incapable of that?

 

[LV426]

Encouraging people to be irresponsible for taking loans they don't have to pay back is bad policy.

I agree! That's why I support Free Public Colleges funded by taxes on the wealthy.

Supporting fly-by-night private for-profit colleges that close down before students can complete their programs is bad policy.

Right, and who are the ones pushing for more federal dollars to go to these schools? Conservatives like Betsy DeVos. Who are the ones who are pushing for public dollars to go to for-profit charter schools? Conservatives like Betsy DeVos.

Not liberals.

So you keep bringing up things that have nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Free public colleges, funded by taxes on the wealthy, are what Sanders and Warren are proposing.

You're the ones who are so consumed with there being private alternatives that are run for profit.

 

[LV426]

Government debt that is too high slows down the economy.

NO!
IT!
DOESN'T!

For fuck's sake, Flash, we just went through this shit back in 2010.

You all screeched like fucking idiots that too much debt would be bad for the eocnmy, and you based that on a paper called Growth in the Time of Debt. That paper turned out to be a fraud because the people who wrote it, like you, deliberately withheld information and data from their analysis that didn't fit the conclusion they were seeking.

You got tricked into thinking high levels of government debt result in poor economic growth when that isn't true at all.

AT ALL.

So why are you using 9 year old lies?

Because you're a fucking sophist.

 

[LV426]

Government debt that is too high slows down the economy.

NOPE!

WRONG!

Completely fucking wrong.

In fact, the opposite is the case, and we know that because you liars tried to spread this lie 9 years ago, only to have a UMASS Grad Student completely debunk it.

For some stupid reason, you aren't informed of that. WHY?

WHY didn't you know that "conventional wisdom" of yours was proven to be a crock of shit?

It's only been 6 years...

FAQ: Reinhart, Rogoff, and the Excel Error That Changed History
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...goff-and-the-excel-error-that-changed-history

 

[LV426]

Increasing taxes on one group to pay for the programs of others leads to efforts to avoid paying such high taxes and creates irresponsible citizens thinking they are entitled to free government benefits.

Your argument is we can't raise taxes because it wouldn't be fair to the people whose taxes we raised?

Well, was it fair when they took all the wage gains and income growth?

 

[LV426]

The higher the percentage of GDP spent by the government slows the economy.

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.

How could you be so fucking wrong? Simple; you're too fucking lazy to do the work.

In fact, higher levels of government debt do not translate to lower economic growth.

How do I know that? Because I do my research because Conservatives lie about everything and will deliberately lie to push a false point.

Only a fucking idiot still thinks high levels of government debt correspond to poor GDP growth, even after the study that initially said that was corrected because it was wrong.

 

[LV426]

Because anybody who follows politics know the Democrats will not raise taxes enough to pay for all those programs

WTF are you talking about?

You're the ones who screech that raising the tax rate to 90% (which it was for almost 20 years) is too high!

You're the ones who screech that any tax increase is too high.

It's like we are in bizarro world now...Democrats don't want to raise taxes high enough to pay for it? AOC just said the other day she wanted a 70% top tax rate.

FFS, Flash, you are 100% a sophist.

 

[LV426]

It will hurt too many of their wealthy supporters--thus, irresponsible.

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren don't take campaign contributions from the mega-wealthy, and their average donations are under $30.

So you just say whatever stupid shit comes to your mind, and you think that position is entitled to serious consideration why?

lus those programs only make the problems worse because they incentivize the wasteful spending.

What is "wasteful spending"? What are you even fucking talking about? Why is it that you use vague, ambivalent phrases whenever you debate? Because you are actually very insecure in what you're saying so you give yourself wiggle room.

What a fucking fraud.

 

[LV426]

Simple. If you cut taxes without spending cuts you increase the deficit and debt---simple economics.

First off, this is you admitting tax cuts cause deficits and debt.

Secondly, deficits and debt don't have an impact on the economy. We know this because you all tried to pretend it did, and were caught lying about it.

So you didn't actually answer why spending has to be cut in order for tax cuts to work. You haven't made the connection...and the connection you are trying to make, that high levels of debt correspond to poor economic growth, is fucking wrong and a lie!

You don't want consumers spending too much borrowed money

OK, but every time taxes have been cut the last 40 years, household debt increased and personal savings plummeted.

I've posted this same chart at least two dozen times, and never once have you bothered to reconcile it with your bullshit beliefs:



So you say you like facts, but you don't. You like having your bias confirmed, and you will use any piece of lying bullshit you can to do that.

 

[LV426]

I'm not ideologically opposed to government spending---only wasteful government spending--like the $60 billion Medicare says is fraud.

Which amounts to less than the amount of fraud committed by Rick Scott himself.

Also, if you want to prevent fraud, you have to fund agencies that police it.

But you don't want to increase spending in order to fight fraud...so really, your position is masturbatory; you oppose increasing spending to fight fraud because of fraud that comes from lower spending on oversight.

Total fucking masturbation.