Biden's America

[Guy Chamberlin]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

It was always dumb for Joe and Left to demonize the Trump tax cuts.  That demonization is coming home to roost soon since Joe promised to not raise taxes on those making under $400,000.  He can’t keep that pledge and pledge to let the tax cuts expire.    Dems are also now coming to the realization that the rhetoric of only tax cuts for the wealthy isn’t going to be believable anymore to those easily duped, when taxes get raised for the common folk.  

 

 

 

This conversation should also consider the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, which were scheduled to sunset under Obama, who let them continue. 

 

At the time the U.S. tax rate was still low compared to previous U.S. tax rates under a supposedly thriving economy.  

 

The tax cuts were promoted and passed for the positive impact they would have on the larger economy. That didn't happen at all.  They did not improve economic growth or pay for themselves, but ballooned deficits and debt and contributed to the rise in income inequality.  They were very much tax cuts for the wealthy.

 

Basically, the entire supply side argument did nothing it's proponents promised, and everything its detractors warned about. 

[Archy1221]

15 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

The tax cuts were promoted and passed for the positive impact they would have on the larger economy. That didn't happen at all.  They did not improve economic growth or pay for themselves, but ballooned deficits and debt and contributed to the rise in income inequality.  They were very much tax cuts for the wealthy.

 

Basically, the entire supply side argument did nothing it's proponents promised, and everything its detractors warned about

They absolutely did foster an economic growth spurt and have paid for themselves as evidence by the massive increase in government revenues in subsequent years.  A stronger economy btw going into Covid….also allowing for a much stronger post Covid recovery (combined with quite a lot of government spending).  
 

Tax cuts do have an immediate deficit component to them, they also foster growth in years after which increase treasuries revenue which in turn pays for the tax cuts.  It’s not an immediate process like so many talking heads like Krugman on the left conflate it to be.  

[BigRedBuster]

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

14 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

They absolutely did foster an economic growth spurt and have paid for themselves as evidence by the massive increase in government revenues in subsequent years.  A stronger economy btw going into Covid….also allowing for a much stronger post Covid recovery (combined with quite a lot of government spending).  
 

Tax cuts do have an immediate deficit component to them, they also foster growth in years after which increase treasuries revenue which in turn pays for the tax cuts.  It’s not an immediate process like so many talking heads like Krugman on the left conflate it to be.  

 

There's plenty of evidence to the contrary. I grabbed an overview from a source vested in financial accuracy. 

 

https://www.investopedia.com/supply-side-economics-6755346

[Archy1221]

17 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

There's plenty of evidence to the contrary. I grabbed an overview from a source vested in financial accuracy. 

 

https://www.investopedia.com/supply-side-economics-6755346

https://www.investopedia.com/contributors/68104/
 

I would invite you to re-read the article and look at it from the left lense the author writes it from.  Carefully look at the words chosen when he refers to data points.  One glaring example is his point #5.   Saying debt to GDP exploding does not preclude saying tax cuts pay for themselves.   Tax cuts and them increasing revenues have no bearing on what government ends up spending during that time and increasing the debt.     
Just one example of piss poor reporting. 

[Guy Chamberlin]

28 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

https://www.investopedia.com/contributors/68104/
 

I would invite you to re-read the article and look at it from the left lense the author writes it from.  Carefully look at the words chosen when he refers to data points.  One glaring example is his point #5.   Saying debt to GDP exploding does not preclude saying tax cuts pay for themselves.   Tax cuts and them increasing revenues have no bearing on what government ends up spending during that time and increasing the debt.     
Just one example of piss poor reporting. 

 

Because it's a fair and well written piece it addresses the various qualifiers and caveats as part of its larger conclusions. 

 

Are you sure that's a left lens and "piss poor" reporting?  Investopedia has a singular agenda and it's about making money. Odd place for a socialist to seek out. You linked to the author's bio, as if it contained some smoking gun about his bias. I sure couldn't find it. 

 

Tons of similar views on this subject, but I'll assume you won't trust the source. 

[commando]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

who are the groomers?

[Archy1221]

3 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Are you sure that's a left lens and "piss poor" reporting?  Investopedia has a singular agenda and it's about making money.

Yes I am.  Just read the article you posted for verification of my assessment.  
 

3 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Tons of similar views on this subject, but I'll assume you won't trust the source. 

Tons of views that say the opposite  is the assumption you will trust those sources.  

[RedDenver]

4 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

They absolutely did foster an economic growth spurt and have paid for themselves as evidence by the massive increase in government revenues in subsequent years.  A stronger economy btw going into Covid….also allowing for a much stronger post Covid recovery (combined with quite a lot of government spending).  
 

Tax cuts do have an immediate deficit component to them, they also foster growth in years after which increase treasuries revenue which in turn pays for the tax cuts.  It’s not an immediate process like so many talking heads like Krugman on the left conflate it to be.  

Ah yes, the supply side economics makes a comeback. Remember when Kansas was going to be the experiment that showed how great it was?

[Archy1221]

3 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Because it's a fair and well written piece it addresses the various qualifiers and caveats as part of its larger conclusions. 

 

Are you sure that's a left lens and "piss poor" reporting?  Investopedia has a singular agenda and it's about making money. Odd place for a socialist to seek out. You linked to the author's bio, as if it contained some smoking gun about his bias. I sure couldn't find it. 

 

Tons of similar views on this subject, but I'll assume you won't trust the source. 

From the article…..These Presidents advocates AND GAVE, tax cuts for everyone who pays income tax.   A fair and balanced reporting wouldn’t be framing his article that way 

 

Tax cuts for the rich is an economic policy that’s been championed by several leading politicians since, including former U.S. Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump.

[teachercd]

 

[Archy1221]

53 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Ah yes, the supply side economics makes a comeback. Remember when Kansas was going to be the experiment that showed how great it was?

The Kansas law was extremely poorly written and legislature took out some offsets making it even worse at the time of passage. It was a stupid bill to pass as written and does not reflect success other states have had with low income tax rates.  

[teachercd]

2 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

The Kansas law was extremely poorly written and legislature took out some offsets making it even worse at the time of passage. It was a stupid bill to pass as written and does not reflect success other states have had with low income tax rates.  

The fact that some people think low income tax is bad...is so weird to me.

 

 

[Archy1221]

2 minutes ago, teachercd said:

The fact that some people think low income tax is bad...is so weird to me.

 

 

Absolutely.   Anyone who thinks they aren’t paying enough can certainly refuse the tax breaks they claim (they don’t) or send money in to the treasury willingly (they don’t) 

[teachercd]

1 minute ago, Archy1221 said:

Absolutely.   Anyone who thinks they aren’t paying enough can certainly refuse the tax breaks they claim (they don’t) or send money in to the treasury willingly (they don’t) 

Amen!