new study suggests some people grossly overestimate their political knowledge.

direstraits posted:
L. Cranston posted:
direstraits posted:
L. Cranston posted:

It's funny to see the Republicans scramble to cover for the posts they made earlier. The tax bills passed in 82 and 84, together, constituted the largest tax increase in peacetime, in US history. At no point in the history of America  have Republican tax breaks done what Republicans said they'd do and today is no different.

 

Provenance for this claim, please!

Dire, I suggest you research before commenting.  It would reduce your embarrassment. I used google and read the first couple of articles.

IOW, can't produce the evidence. 

IOW,  you're too lazy or too deceitful to look them up and admit it?

Stanky posted:
L. Cranston posted:

Perhaps you should tell the Treasury Department. Facts don't have a side, they're just facts.

Revenue effects of major tax bills since 1968. Table 2. Page 3.

https://www.treasury.gov/resou...s/WP81-Table2013.pdf

Not sure about their methodology, but looking at the goobermint's revenue figures:

https://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/usgs_line.php?title=Total%20Direct%20Revenue&units=p&size=t&legend=&year=1980_1990&sname=US&bar=0&stack=1&col=c&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_i_a&spending0=30.95_31.63_32.19_30.35_30.23_31.00_31.36_32.48_31.91_32.21_32.24

or

https://www.usgovernmentrevenu...USb_20s1li011lcn_F0f

 

Except for the recession caused by the Fed wringing out inflation, I would say that revenue grew over the Reagan era. But I guess with enough political "what if" assumptions from the politicians who asked for the Treasury report, anything can happen.

Nice attempt , but who is arguing that revenue didn't increase? Taxes were raised almost every year after the cuts of 81.

Let me put it in terms even Dire can understand.
Tax cuts of 81, around 2.8% of gdp
total of tax increases until 1990 2.9% of gdp.

Republicans made huge cuts in 81 and spent the next 8 years increasing taxes trying to gain revenue.

L. Cranston posted:
direstraits posted:
L. Cranston posted:
direstraits posted:
L. Cranston posted:

It's funny to see the Republicans scramble to cover for the posts they made earlier. The tax bills passed in 82 and 84, together, constituted the largest tax increase in peacetime, in US history. At no point in the history of America  have Republican tax breaks done what Republicans said they'd do and today is no different.

 

Provenance for this claim, please!

Dire, I suggest you research before commenting.  It would reduce your embarrassment. I used google and read the first couple of articles.

IOW, can't produce the evidence. 

IOW,  you're too lazy or too deceitful to look them up and admit it?

Give the link!  nothing to do with lazy or deceitful!  Will not spend time attempting to analyze the wrong thing. 

L. Cranston posted:
Stanky posted:
L. Cranston posted:

Perhaps you should tell the Treasury Department. Facts don't have a side, they're just facts.

Revenue effects of major tax bills since 1968. Table 2. Page 3.

https://www.treasury.gov/resou...s/WP81-Table2013.pdf

Not sure about their methodology, but looking at the goobermint's revenue figures:

https://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/usgs_line.php?title=Total%20Direct%20Revenue&units=p&size=t&legend=&year=1980_1990&sname=US&bar=0&stack=1&col=c&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_i_a&spending0=30.95_31.63_32.19_30.35_30.23_31.00_31.36_32.48_31.91_32.21_32.24

or

https://www.usgovernmentrevenu...USb_20s1li011lcn_F0f

 

Except for the recession caused by the Fed wringing out inflation, I would say that revenue grew over the Reagan era. But I guess with enough political "what if" assumptions from the politicians who asked for the Treasury report, anything can happen.

Nice attempt , but who is arguing that revenue didn't increase? Taxes were raised almost every year after the cuts of 81.

Let me put it in terms even Dire can understand.
Tax cuts of 81, around 2.8% of gdp
total of tax increases until 1990 2.9% of gdp.

Republicans made huge cuts in 81 and spent the next 8 years increasing taxes trying to gain revenue.

Uh, tax rates were slashed in 1986 or did you forget that. I might note that even Clinton and Ol'bama never hiked rates back to the pre-1986 levels.

direstraits posted:
L. Cranston posted:
direstraits posted:
L. Cranston posted:
direstraits posted:
L. Cranston posted:

It's funny to see the Republicans scramble to cover for the posts they made earlier. The tax bills passed in 82 and 84, together, constituted the largest tax increase in peacetime, in US history. At no point in the history of America  have Republican tax breaks done what Republicans said they'd do and today is no different.

 

Provenance for this claim, please!

Dire, I suggest you research before commenting.  It would reduce your embarrassment. I used google and read the first couple of articles.

IOW, can't produce the evidence. 

IOW,  you're too lazy or too deceitful to look them up and admit it?

Give the link!  nothing to do with lazy or deceitful!  Will not spend time attempting to analyze the wrong thing. 

You can't find the link? Why does Stanky have no problem finding the link?

Stanky posted:
L. Cranston posted:
Stanky posted:
L. Cranston posted:

Perhaps you should tell the Treasury Department. Facts don't have a side, they're just facts.

Revenue effects of major tax bills since 1968. Table 2. Page 3.

https://www.treasury.gov/resou...s/WP81-Table2013.pdf

Not sure about their methodology, but looking at the goobermint's revenue figures:

https://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/usgs_line.php?title=Total%20Direct%20Revenue&units=p&size=t&legend=&year=1980_1990&sname=US&bar=0&stack=1&col=c&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_i_a&spending0=30.95_31.63_32.19_30.35_30.23_31.00_31.36_32.48_31.91_32.21_32.24

or

https://www.usgovernmentrevenu...USb_20s1li011lcn_F0f

 

Except for the recession caused by the Fed wringing out inflation, I would say that revenue grew over the Reagan era. But I guess with enough political "what if" assumptions from the politicians who asked for the Treasury report, anything can happen.

Nice attempt , but who is arguing that revenue didn't increase? Taxes were raised almost every year after the cuts of 81.

Let me put it in terms even Dire can understand.
Tax cuts of 81, around 2.8% of gdp
total of tax increases until 1990 2.9% of gdp.

Republicans made huge cuts in 81 and spent the next 8 years increasing taxes trying to gain revenue.

Uh, tax rates were slashed in 1986 or did you forget that. I might note that even Clinton and Ol'bama never hiked rates back to the pre-1986 levels.

The chart I referenced shows exactly what happened , according to the Treasury Dept. with those tax cuts in 86. Can you not read the chart? Do you not understand the facts? The first year or two they may have produced revenue, but by year 4 they were having a negative effect on revenue. Check the facts. Plain and simple.

Jutu posted:

"new study suggests some people grossly overestimate their political knowledge".

Yes, they are called democrats, liberals, progressives and socialists. Toss in a touch of communist.

And we have a new Republican with their first attempt at proving the article to be correct.

L. Cranston posted:
Stanky posted:
L. Cranston posted:
Stanky posted:
L. Cranston posted:

Perhaps you should tell the Treasury Department. Facts don't have a side, they're just facts.

Revenue effects of major tax bills since 1968. Table 2. Page 3.

https://www.treasury.gov/resou...s/WP81-Table2013.pdf

Not sure about their methodology, but looking at the goobermint's revenue figures:

https://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/usgs_line.php?title=Total%20Direct%20Revenue&units=p&size=t&legend=&year=1980_1990&sname=US&bar=0&stack=1&col=c&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_i_a&spending0=30.95_31.63_32.19_30.35_30.23_31.00_31.36_32.48_31.91_32.21_32.24

or

https://www.usgovernmentrevenu...USb_20s1li011lcn_F0f

 

Except for the recession caused by the Fed wringing out inflation, I would say that revenue grew over the Reagan era. But I guess with enough political "what if" assumptions from the politicians who asked for the Treasury report, anything can happen.

Nice attempt , but who is arguing that revenue didn't increase? Taxes were raised almost every year after the cuts of 81.

Let me put it in terms even Dire can understand.
Tax cuts of 81, around 2.8% of gdp
total of tax increases until 1990 2.9% of gdp.

Republicans made huge cuts in 81 and spent the next 8 years increasing taxes trying to gain revenue.

Uh, tax rates were slashed in 1986 or did you forget that. I might note that even Clinton and Ol'bama never hiked rates back to the pre-1986 levels.

The chart I referenced shows exactly what happened , according to the Treasury Dept. with those tax cuts in 86. Can you not read the chart? Do you not understand the facts? The first year or two they may have produced revenue, but by year 4 they were having a negative effect on revenue. Check the facts. Plain and simple.

The real facts are this chart:

In spite of the fact that people kept more of their own money, revenue still grew greatly during the years that the first iteration of tax cuts were in place. Even though future years cuts were rescinded, people still had the lower rates of the first year (max 50%). Again, if the the 1986 tax bill was so bad, why did both Clinton and Ol'bama essentially keep the Reagan cuts? The top rate started out at 38.5% before dropping to 28% during Reagan-Bush before climbing a little in Bushes time (31%) and then hitting 39.6 in Clinton's time. Bush the second signed legislation for 35% then Ol'bama for 39.6%. So when did anyone go for the 70% pre-Reagan?

As for your chart, there was no listed methodology defining exactly how they arrived at those numbers. Given that like the CBO, politicians can set the assumptions; I suspect that whoever requested that policy paper didn't want to know if there were any stimulative effect and increased revenue from that effect. It's all "Trust us, we're the government!".

Stanky posted:
L. Cranston posted:
Stanky posted:
L. Cranston posted:
Stanky posted:
L. Cranston posted:

Perhaps you should tell the Treasury Department. Facts don't have a side, they're just facts.

Revenue effects of major tax bills since 1968. Table 2. Page 3.

https://www.treasury.gov/resou...s/WP81-Table2013.pdf

Not sure about their methodology, but looking at the goobermint's revenue figures:

https://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/usgs_line.php?title=Total%20Direct%20Revenue&units=p&size=t&legend=&year=1980_1990&sname=US&bar=0&stack=1&col=c&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_i_a&spending0=30.95_31.63_32.19_30.35_30.23_31.00_31.36_32.48_31.91_32.21_32.24

or

https://www.usgovernmentrevenu...USb_20s1li011lcn_F0f

 

Except for the recession caused by the Fed wringing out inflation, I would say that revenue grew over the Reagan era. But I guess with enough political "what if" assumptions from the politicians who asked for the Treasury report, anything can happen.

Nice attempt , but who is arguing that revenue didn't increase? Taxes were raised almost every year after the cuts of 81.

Let me put it in terms even Dire can understand.
Tax cuts of 81, around 2.8% of gdp
total of tax increases until 1990 2.9% of gdp.

Republicans made huge cuts in 81 and spent the next 8 years increasing taxes trying to gain revenue.

Uh, tax rates were slashed in 1986 or did you forget that. I might note that even Clinton and Ol'bama never hiked rates back to the pre-1986 levels.

The chart I referenced shows exactly what happened , according to the Treasury Dept. with those tax cuts in 86. Can you not read the chart? Do you not understand the facts? The first year or two they may have produced revenue, but by year 4 they were having a negative effect on revenue. Check the facts. Plain and simple.

The real facts are this chart:

In spite of the fact that people kept more of their own money, revenue still grew greatly during the years that the first iteration of tax cuts were in place. Even though future years cuts were rescinded, people still had the lower rates of the first year (max 50%). Again, if the the 1986 tax bill was so bad, why did both Clinton and Ol'bama essentially keep the Reagan cuts? The top rate started out at 38.5% before dropping to 28% during Reagan-Bush before climbing a little in Bushes time (31%) and then hitting 39.6 in Clinton's time. Bush the second signed legislation for 35% then Ol'bama for 39.6%. So when did anyone go for the 70% pre-Reagan?

As for your chart, there was no listed methodology defining exactly how they arrived at those numbers. Given that like the CBO, politicians can set the assumptions; I suspect that whoever requested that policy paper didn't want to know if there were any stimulative effect and increased revenue from that effect. It's all "Trust us, we're the government!".

So, you just don't like the report and your biggest concern is why Democrats didn't try to go back to a 70% tax bracket?
Well, the only answer I can come up with is, running a campaign on raising taxes wouldn't be a popular idea, would it.

L. Cranston posted:
Stanky posted:
L. Cranston posted:
Stanky posted:
L. Cranston posted:
Stanky posted:
L. Cranston posted:

Perhaps you should tell the Treasury Department. Facts don't have a side, they're just facts.

Revenue effects of major tax bills since 1968. Table 2. Page 3.

https://www.treasury.gov/resou...s/WP81-Table2013.pdf

Not sure about their methodology, but looking at the goobermint's revenue figures:

https://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/usgs_line.php?title=Total%20Direct%20Revenue&units=p&size=t&legend=&year=1980_1990&sname=US&bar=0&stack=1&col=c&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_i_a&spending0=30.95_31.63_32.19_30.35_30.23_31.00_31.36_32.48_31.91_32.21_32.24

or

https://www.usgovernmentrevenu...USb_20s1li011lcn_F0f

 

Except for the recession caused by the Fed wringing out inflation, I would say that revenue grew over the Reagan era. But I guess with enough political "what if" assumptions from the politicians who asked for the Treasury report, anything can happen.

Nice attempt , but who is arguing that revenue didn't increase? Taxes were raised almost every year after the cuts of 81.

Let me put it in terms even Dire can understand.
Tax cuts of 81, around 2.8% of gdp
total of tax increases until 1990 2.9% of gdp.

Republicans made huge cuts in 81 and spent the next 8 years increasing taxes trying to gain revenue.

Uh, tax rates were slashed in 1986 or did you forget that. I might note that even Clinton and Ol'bama never hiked rates back to the pre-1986 levels.

The chart I referenced shows exactly what happened , according to the Treasury Dept. with those tax cuts in 86. Can you not read the chart? Do you not understand the facts? The first year or two they may have produced revenue, but by year 4 they were having a negative effect on revenue. Check the facts. Plain and simple.

The real facts are this chart:

In spite of the fact that people kept more of their own money, revenue still grew greatly during the years that the first iteration of tax cuts were in place. Even though future years cuts were rescinded, people still had the lower rates of the first year (max 50%). Again, if the the 1986 tax bill was so bad, why did both Clinton and Ol'bama essentially keep the Reagan cuts? The top rate started out at 38.5% before dropping to 28% during Reagan-Bush before climbing a little in Bushes time (31%) and then hitting 39.6 in Clinton's time. Bush the second signed legislation for 35% then Ol'bama for 39.6%. So when did anyone go for the 70% pre-Reagan?

As for your chart, there was no listed methodology defining exactly how they arrived at those numbers. Given that like the CBO, politicians can set the assumptions; I suspect that whoever requested that policy paper didn't want to know if there were any stimulative effect and increased revenue from that effect. It's all "Trust us, we're the government!".

So, you just don't like the report and your biggest concern is why Democrats didn't try to go back to a 70% tax bracket?
Well, the only answer I can come up with is, running a campaign on raising taxes wouldn't be a popular idea, would it.

Problem with the graph is it shows "total government revenue," not just tax receipts.  Its the mandatory vs. budgeted revenue/spending.  Total revenue includes all taxes (personal and corporate income taxes, tariff and excise tax revenue, which is the budgeted spending Congress must authorize annually). Versus, other revenue, including Medicare and Social Security contributions from employees and employers, about a dozen pension trust fund contributions, including but not limited to two civil service pension fund, Railway pension fund, and the pension guaranty act fund, plus revenue from government properties from logging, contractor hotels and shops, oil royalties, etc.

The mandatory spending portion is the reason people still receive Social Security even during a government shut down.  I gave the total tax revenue differences in an earlier comment.  This illustrates why I wanted more info. Amateurs!

direstraits posted:
L. Cranston posted:
Stanky posted:
L. Cranston posted:
Stanky posted:
L. Cranston posted:
Stanky posted:
L. Cranston posted:

Perhaps you should tell the Treasury Department. Facts don't have a side, they're just facts.

Revenue effects of major tax bills since 1968. Table 2. Page 3.

https://www.treasury.gov/resou...s/WP81-Table2013.pdf

Not sure about their methodology, but looking at the goobermint's revenue figures:

https://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/usgs_line.php?title=Total%20Direct%20Revenue&units=p&size=t&legend=&year=1980_1990&sname=US&bar=0&stack=1&col=c&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_i_a&spending0=30.95_31.63_32.19_30.35_30.23_31.00_31.36_32.48_31.91_32.21_32.24

or

https://www.usgovernmentrevenu...USb_20s1li011lcn_F0f

 

Except for the recession caused by the Fed wringing out inflation, I would say that revenue grew over the Reagan era. But I guess with enough political "what if" assumptions from the politicians who asked for the Treasury report, anything can happen.

Nice attempt , but who is arguing that revenue didn't increase? Taxes were raised almost every year after the cuts of 81.

Let me put it in terms even Dire can understand.
Tax cuts of 81, around 2.8% of gdp
total of tax increases until 1990 2.9% of gdp.

Republicans made huge cuts in 81 and spent the next 8 years increasing taxes trying to gain revenue.

Uh, tax rates were slashed in 1986 or did you forget that. I might note that even Clinton and Ol'bama never hiked rates back to the pre-1986 levels.

The chart I referenced shows exactly what happened , according to the Treasury Dept. with those tax cuts in 86. Can you not read the chart? Do you not understand the facts? The first year or two they may have produced revenue, but by year 4 they were having a negative effect on revenue. Check the facts. Plain and simple.

The real facts are this chart:

In spite of the fact that people kept more of their own money, revenue still grew greatly during the years that the first iteration of tax cuts were in place. Even though future years cuts were rescinded, people still had the lower rates of the first year (max 50%). Again, if the the 1986 tax bill was so bad, why did both Clinton and Ol'bama essentially keep the Reagan cuts? The top rate started out at 38.5% before dropping to 28% during Reagan-Bush before climbing a little in Bushes time (31%) and then hitting 39.6 in Clinton's time. Bush the second signed legislation for 35% then Ol'bama for 39.6%. So when did anyone go for the 70% pre-Reagan?

As for your chart, there was no listed methodology defining exactly how they arrived at those numbers. Given that like the CBO, politicians can set the assumptions; I suspect that whoever requested that policy paper didn't want to know if there were any stimulative effect and increased revenue from that effect. It's all "Trust us, we're the government!".

So, you just don't like the report and your biggest concern is why Democrats didn't try to go back to a 70% tax bracket?
Well, the only answer I can come up with is, running a campaign on raising taxes wouldn't be a popular idea, would it.

Problem with the graph is it shows "total government revenue," not just tax receipts.  Its the mandatory vs. budgeted revenue/spending.  Total revenue includes all taxes (personal and corporate income taxes, tariff and excise tax revenue, which is the budgeted spending Congress must authorize annually). Versus, other revenue, including Medicare and Social Security contributions from employees and employers, about a dozen pension trust fund contributions, including but not limited to two civil service pension fund, Railway pension fund, and the pension guaranty act fund, plus revenue from government properties from logging, contractor hotels and shops, oil royalties, etc.

The mandatory spending portion is the reason people still receive Social Security even during a government shut down.  I gave the total tax revenue differences in an earlier comment.  This illustrates why I wanted more info. Amateurs!

I gave my totals in everything from charts to %gdp. This illustrates why facts don't matter to Republicans.

L. Cranston posted:
direstraits posted:
L. Cranston posted:
Stanky posted:
L. Cranston posted:
Stanky posted:
L. Cranston posted:
Stanky posted:
L. Cranston posted:

Perhaps you should tell the Treasury Department. Facts don't have a side, they're just facts.

Revenue effects of major tax bills since 1968. Table 2. Page 3.

https://www.treasury.gov/resou...s/WP81-Table2013.pdf

Not sure about their methodology, but looking at the goobermint's revenue figures:

https://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/usgs_line.php?title=Total%20Direct%20Revenue&units=p&size=t&legend=&year=1980_1990&sname=US&bar=0&stack=1&col=c&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_i_a&spending0=30.95_31.63_32.19_30.35_30.23_31.00_31.36_32.48_31.91_32.21_32.24

or

https://www.usgovernmentrevenu...USb_20s1li011lcn_F0f

 

Except for the recession caused by the Fed wringing out inflation, I would say that revenue grew over the Reagan era. But I guess with enough political "what if" assumptions from the politicians who asked for the Treasury report, anything can happen.

Nice attempt , but who is arguing that revenue didn't increase? Taxes were raised almost every year after the cuts of 81.

Let me put it in terms even Dire can understand.
Tax cuts of 81, around 2.8% of gdp
total of tax increases until 1990 2.9% of gdp.

Republicans made huge cuts in 81 and spent the next 8 years increasing taxes trying to gain revenue.

Uh, tax rates were slashed in 1986 or did you forget that. I might note that even Clinton and Ol'bama never hiked rates back to the pre-1986 levels.

The chart I referenced shows exactly what happened , according to the Treasury Dept. with those tax cuts in 86. Can you not read the chart? Do you not understand the facts? The first year or two they may have produced revenue, but by year 4 they were having a negative effect on revenue. Check the facts. Plain and simple.

The real facts are this chart:

In spite of the fact that people kept more of their own money, revenue still grew greatly during the years that the first iteration of tax cuts were in place. Even though future years cuts were rescinded, people still had the lower rates of the first year (max 50%). Again, if the the 1986 tax bill was so bad, why did both Clinton and Ol'bama essentially keep the Reagan cuts? The top rate started out at 38.5% before dropping to 28% during Reagan-Bush before climbing a little in Bushes time (31%) and then hitting 39.6 in Clinton's time. Bush the second signed legislation for 35% then Ol'bama for 39.6%. So when did anyone go for the 70% pre-Reagan?

As for your chart, there was no listed methodology defining exactly how they arrived at those numbers. Given that like the CBO, politicians can set the assumptions; I suspect that whoever requested that policy paper didn't want to know if there were any stimulative effect and increased revenue from that effect. It's all "Trust us, we're the government!".

So, you just don't like the report and your biggest concern is why Democrats didn't try to go back to a 70% tax bracket?
Well, the only answer I can come up with is, running a campaign on raising taxes wouldn't be a popular idea, would it.

Problem with the graph is it shows "total government revenue," not just tax receipts.  Its the mandatory vs. budgeted revenue/spending.  Total revenue includes all taxes (personal and corporate income taxes, tariff and excise tax revenue, which is the budgeted spending Congress must authorize annually). Versus, other revenue, including Medicare and Social Security contributions from employees and employers, about a dozen pension trust fund contributions, including but not limited to two civil service pension fund, Railway pension fund, and the pension guaranty act fund, plus revenue from government properties from logging, contractor hotels and shops, oil royalties, etc.

The mandatory spending portion is the reason people still receive Social Security even during a government shut down.  I gave the total tax revenue differences in an earlier comment.  This illustrates why I wanted more info. Amateurs!

I gave my totals in everything from charts to %gdp. This illustrates why facts don't matter to Republicans.

You made a major mistake as to what you were commenting on!  Thus, causing a major misunderstanding.  Facts are facts, yes!  Mach 1 is a fact. Warp 1 is a fact.  However, Warp 1 is always faster then Mach 1.  

direstraits posted:

You made a major mistake as to what you were commenting on!  Thus, causing a major misunderstanding.  Facts are facts, yes!  Mach 1 is a fact. Warp 1 is a fact.  However, Warp 1 is always faster then Mach 1.  

As always, one little wording change to make what you post completely false...
Warp 1 is always faster THAN Mach 1. See, one doesn't follow the other. Just like what Republicans say and what Republicans do. One doesn't follow the other.

L. Cranston posted:
direstraits posted:

You made a major mistake as to what you were commenting on!  Thus, causing a major misunderstanding.  Facts are facts, yes!  Mach 1 is a fact. Warp 1 is a fact.  However, Warp 1 is always faster then Mach 1.  

As always, one little wording change to make what you post completely false...
Warp 1 is always faster THAN Mach 1. See, one doesn't follow the other. Just like what Republicans say and what Republicans do. One doesn't follow the other.

Contenduhh,  still don't understand? 

direstraits posted:
L. Cranston posted:
direstraits posted:

You made a major mistake as to what you were commenting on!  Thus, causing a major misunderstanding.  Facts are facts, yes!  Mach 1 is a fact. Warp 1 is a fact.  However, Warp 1 is always faster then Mach 1.  

As always, one little wording change to make what you post completely false...
Warp 1 is always faster THAN Mach 1. See, one doesn't follow the other. Just like what Republicans say and what Republicans do. One doesn't follow the other.

Contenduhh,  still don't understand? 

Still being deceitful?

L. Cranston posted:
direstraits posted:
L. Cranston posted:
direstraits posted:

You made a major mistake as to what you were commenting on!  Thus, causing a major misunderstanding.  Facts are facts, yes!  Mach 1 is a fact. Warp 1 is a fact.  However, Warp 1 is always faster then Mach 1.  

As always, one little wording change to make what you post completely false...
Warp 1 is always faster THAN Mach 1. See, one doesn't follow the other. Just like what Republicans say and what Republicans do. One doesn't follow the other.

Contenduhh,  still don't understand? 

Still being deceitful?

I carefully explained the error you made.  Federal appropriations law is complex. If, you can't understand after explanation, I see no reason to further continue. 

direstraits posted:
L. Cranston posted:
direstraits posted:
L. Cranston posted:
direstraits posted:

You made a major mistake as to what you were commenting on!  Thus, causing a major misunderstanding.  Facts are facts, yes!  Mach 1 is a fact. Warp 1 is a fact.  However, Warp 1 is always faster then Mach 1.  

As always, one little wording change to make what you post completely false...
Warp 1 is always faster THAN Mach 1. See, one doesn't follow the other. Just like what Republicans say and what Republicans do. One doesn't follow the other.

Contenduhh,  still don't understand? 

Still being deceitful?

I carefully explained the error you made.  Federal appropriations law is complex. If, you can't understand after explanation, I see no reason to further continue. 

Again, I gave my totals in everything from charts to %gdp.  The facts show taxes were raised to generate income because the tax cuts failed to generate the income claimed by Republicans. The same holds true today as in the 1980s. Your choice to play semantics instead of being truthful speaks volumes to your character. The Republican tax cuts of last year stand to add 1.8TRILLION$ to our National Debt in the next 8 years. *CBO report.

I believe The Shadow's CBO report is already blown. While CBO guesstimates generally fall apart after a couple of years, the one you cite fell apart in less than a year. The guesstimate called for GDP numbers as feecal as the Ol-bama era's pitiful average. But cheer up, the Federal Reserve is trying to raise rates and unwind the $4.5 Trillion of Quantitative Easing intended to rev up the stagnant Ol'bama economy.

https://www.reuters.com/articl...-hikes-idUSKCN1L728Q

As to "facts" about revenue, how come the Federal Reserve shows that it doesn't matter how high tax rates are, one can only extract so much money from the economy no matter the rate structure:

 

 

Attachments

Photos (1)
L. Cranston posted:

I'm reasonably sure the CBO and the Treasure Dept. have the facts and don't really care that you don't like the reports. You can have your own opinion but you can't have your own facts.

Actually the CBO provides crystal ball projections with political overtones (assumptions usually given by the requesting party); Treasury deals with raw data and sometimes political spin. The analytic part of the Fed deals with what actually happened and other departments will produce both good and questionable studies ( I believe it was the Boston branch that created the erroneous report that inspired the laws in 1994 that made buying a house too easy which factored into the 2008 bust.). The board of directors of the Federal Reserve generally get to decide when recessions start and end by manipulating interest rates and money supply.

Add Reply


×
×
×
×