Are The Two Parties Any Different?

[Jeff]

You conveniently skipped over this part...

Shhh.... they won't absorb anything bad unless it's aimed at Trump.

[YoDoug]

You do realize that Reason is a libertarian media outlet?  Their complaint isn't about tax reduction. It's about the combination of tax reduction without reduced spending.

I figured that you of all people would be on board with their complaints.   

I agree, with the premise that we have a spending problem, not a tax problem. I just don't like articles that put any blame on tax cuts for deficits. The reality of taxation is the more money changes hands, the better off we are. policies that create more commerce will create more revenue than policies that slow commerce. That is a completely separate issue from out of control spending but both parties combine the two with their own special figures to push their agenda. You show me an article that says tax cuts are the cause of deficits or an article that claims tax cuts will reduce deficits and I will call BS on both. Deficits are a spending problem.

[Smit]

Again your rose colored glasses keep you from the most basic reading comprehension. I said tax revenues, not deficit. I won't deny the deficit increased a ton under Reagan. IMO, He should not have signed the bills congress was sending. My argument was that Neuro's article is largely blaming their projected increase to the deficit on tax cuts. If tax revenue increases then you can't blame it that. I'll put in simple terms for your liberal mind, If inflation is up and you are spending more money to live, but your income is also up, is the problem your income, or inflation? You can spin that either way which is what you continually fall for from your biased liberal sources.

Right. Tax cuts pay for themselves. History has always shown us that, eh?

No biased Repugery going on there.

I just don't like articles that put any blame on tax cuts for deficits.

Reality doesn't really care what you like. Reality is harsh like that. 

[YoDoug]

Right. Tax cuts pay for themselves. History has always shown us that, eh?

No biased Repugery going on there.

Reality doesn't really care what you like. Reality is harsh like that. 

Total tax revenue to the gov double between 1980 to 1990. It would seem they did in fact pay for themselves. Again, for your simple mind, if a business lowers it price by 20% but then over the next ten years doubles annual sales revenue, it would seem their price decrease did pay for itself.

[Jim at Gentex]

But he did.  If you look at tax revenue, it did, if memory serves me, increase for at least a short period of time. The problem was that spending also increased.

Spending has ALWAYS been the problem, because the Congress critters are like drunken teenagers using Mom & Dad's credit card.

I just mentioned yesterday that the Senate's so-called 'Border Security' bill was stuffed with another $60 billion for Ukraine, and $14 billion more for Israel, which has ZERO to do with border security, so the House said they would not pass it.

They are all like drug addicts trying to squeeze out money for another fix wherever they can.

I wouldn't be opposed to firing every one of them and starting over, but we all know that isn't happening.
We can vote them out one at a time, but the problem doesn't go away because the whole system itself is corrupt.

[neurosis]

The reality of taxation is the more money changes hands, the better off we are.

That's true, but is that what really happened (talking over recent years)?  It seems like most of that money just gets packed away somewhere while the personal wealth of a minority of people grows and the rest of us get to watch it happen. None of us middle class guys got rich off of those tax cuts.  Not complaining about my taxes being cut.

To do a double quote, the guy in the video quoting George Carlin "It's a big club, and you ain't in it!". 

[Smit]

Total tax revenue to the gov double between 1980 to 1990. It would seem they did in fact pay for themselves. Again, for your simple mind, if a business lowers it price by 20% but then over the next ten years doubles annual sales revenue, it would seem their price decrease did pay for itself.

So correlation equals causation, eh? I'm not gonna say anything about simple minds, but damn.

And I'll drop this right here. It's an old article but a good historical look back at the Reagan tax cuts you like to think paid for themselves.

What we learned from Reagan's tax cuts

Excerpt:

Q. Did the 1981 Reagan tax cut spur enough economic growth that it paid for itself?

A. When Ronald Reagan arrived in Washington in 1981, circumstances were very different than they are today. Inflation was nearly 10 percent. The Federal Reserve had pushed interest rates into double digits. The federal debt was about half what it is today, measured as a share of the economy. The Reagan tax cut was huge. The top rate fell from 70 percent to 50 percent. The tax cut didn't pay for itself. According to later Treasury estimates, it reduced federal revenues by about 9 percent in the first couple of years.  In fact, most of the top Reagan administration officials didn't think the tax cut would pay for itself. They were counting on spending cuts to avoid blowing up the deficit. But they never materialized.

[neurosis]

Shhh.... they won't absorb anything bad unless it's aimed at Trump.

This thread isn't a complaint about Trump, it's about both parties doing nothing to solve the current financial crisis.  The only reason Trump is in the conversation here, or in the video, is to point out that he *also* did nothing to help, and if re-elected, doubtful that he will. You could have substituted any Republican Presidential candidate and the only part of the conversation that would have changed is the name. 

[Smit]

You conveniently skipped over this part...

I skipped over the Trump part too, just like you did.

Because it wasn't relevant to the conversation.

[Jim at Gentex]

I skipped over the Trump part too, just like you did.

Because it wasn't relevant to the conversation.

You said you posted it for us to ignore.
I actually read the whole article and cherry picked just like you did. 

[beej]

None of us middle class guys got rich off of those tax cuts.  Not complaining about my taxes being cut.

You wouldn't seriously expect to get rich from a tax cut, would you?

[Smit]

You said you posted it for us to ignore.
I actually read the whole article and cherry picked just like you did. 

I read the whole article too. It was pretty good I thought.

But the discussion wasn't about a bunch of Presidents, it was about Reagan in particular.

If you want to discuss the other Presidents in the article, well, that's a different conversation.

[neurosis]

You wouldn't seriously expect to get rich from a tax cut, would you?

Some people certainly did. 

"You all just got a lot richer"   Who is that quoting again?    I can't remember.

[beej]

What we learned from Reagan's tax cuts

Excerpt:

Q. Did the 1981 Reagan tax cut spur enough economic growth that it paid for itself?

A. When Ronald Reagan arrived in Washington in 1981, circumstances were very different than they are today. Inflation was nearly 10 percent. The Federal Reserve had pushed interest rates into double digits. The federal debt was about half what it is today, measured as a share of the economy. The Reagan tax cut was huge. The top rate fell from 70 percent to 50 percent. The tax cut didn't pay for itself. According to later Treasury estimates, it reduced federal revenues by about 9 percent in the first couple of years.  In fact, most of the top Reagan administration officials didn't think the tax cut would pay for itself. They were counting on spending cuts to avoid blowing up the deficit. But they never materialized.

from the Brookings institute? of course that's how they would phrase it. Let's break that statement down a little.

it reduced federal revenues by about 9 percent in the first couple of years.

why did they stop the analysis at 2 years?

They were counting on spending cuts to avoid blowing up the deficit. But they never materialized.

Never materialized? hmmmm interesting way of putting it. I guess I would have to ask who kept the budget cuts from "materializing"

[beej]

Some people certainly did. 

"You all just got a lot richer"   Who is that quoting again?    I can't remember.

richer does not necessarily equal rich, though. if a 400lb man gets a lot thinner, it doesn't mean he is thin.