US on track to borrow most money since 2008 financial crisis: report

[PoliTalker]

Hello Dirt McGirt,

Anyway, I had no intention of derailing into a discussion of the Bush tax cuts, but rather to point out the dishonesty in cherry picking numbers to imply that tax cuts have a negative impact on revenue.

Well, that latest tax cut sure did have a negative impact on revenue.

Just as predicted.

Before it was voted on, it was reported that it would result in higher debt.

But they did it anyway, and now we have higher debt.

Just like the pre-cut analysis.

They said the higher GDP would make up for it, but it hasn't.

The economy is fine and the deficit is bigger than it ever was during President Obama's second term.

If it can't be paid down now, how will it ever be paid down during the next recession?

 

[countryboy]

Well, they increased because of the housing bubble.

Your claim was that the tax cuts caused more revenue. That's demonstrably untrue.

Taking three steps back to take one step forward leaves you how many steps behind?

Libs have an excuse for everything. But you're right, correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation. But what we do know for sure is, throughout history tax cuts have ALWAYS correlated with increased revenue. So, at the very least, we know tax cuts don't cause a decrease in revenue. Trump's tax cuts are no exception, as once again, tax cuts have coincided with increased federal revenues.

 

[CharacterAssassin]

Libs have an excuse for everything. But you're right, correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation. But what we do know for sure is, throughout history tax cuts have ALWAYS correlated with increased revenue. So, at the very least, we know tax cuts don't cause a decrease in revenue. Trump's tax cuts are no exception, as once again, tax cuts have coincided with increased federal revenues.

What a fascinating assertion.

Which data indicates that to be the case?

 

[bhaktajan]

Not to worry we have 970 Lawyers are on the Job.

















That's nothing....guess how many accountants the IRS has ---or is that really how many IT technicians

 

[countryboy]

What a fascinating assertion.

Which data indicates that to be the case?

Umm, the data. What other data is there? Your fellow traveler unwittingly posted a link to it. Going back to 1940 anyways. Can you point to a specific period where tax cuts didn't coincide with an increase in revenue?

 

[Bourbon]

And just where are the howling teabaggers now?

The Treasury Department predicted in a report Monday that the government's borrowing needs for the second half of 2018 will be $769 billion - the highest its borrowed since 2008 during the financial crisis.

Bloomberg reports that Treasury foresees issuing $329 billion in net marketable debt between July and the end of September, and another $440 billion between October and the end of the year. The total $769 billion comes in at the highest borrowing estimate since $1.1 trillion between July and December of 2008 in the middle of the financial crisis.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...since-2008-financial-crisis-report/ar-BBLjgQC

What happen to those Tee-Baggers ... ?

 

[Micawber]

Trump failed. Failed Presidency in every way.

 

[christiefan915]

Republicans intentionally engineer trillion dollar deficits, so they can later claim there is not enough money for infrastructure, social security, education, and health care, and science programs. IN other words, the deficits are their fault, but other people have to pay for it.

Speaking of infrastructure, what has trump done about it since he vowed “the biggest and boldest infrastructure investment in American history..”?

 

[Cypress]

Speaking of infrastructure, what has trump done about it since he vowed “the biggest and boldest infrastructure investment in American history..”?

Good question!

I assume because, as per usual, the Orange Pig was full of shit.

Let's face it, the only thing modern Republicans are good at - the only thing they ever do - is cut taxes for Wall street and the investor class, and throw money at the Pentagon.

 

[CharacterAssassin]

Umm, the data. What other data is there? Your fellow traveler unwittingly posted a link to it. Going back to 1940 anyways. Can you point to a specific period where tax cuts didn't coincide with an increase in revenue?

So you lied.

Golly! Why am I not surprised?

Silly whore, learn how to argue.

 

[countryboy]

So you lied.

Golly! Why am I not surprised?

Silly whore, learn how to argue.

I never lie. I noticed you couldn't refute my assertion. That's because it cannot be refuted. Tax cuts at the federal level always coincide with increased federal revenues. Go ahead, disprove it. You cannot.

 

[CharacterAssassin]

I never lie. I noticed you couldn't refute my assertion. That's because it cannot be refuted. Tax cuts at the federal level always coincide with increased federal revenues. Go ahead, disprove it. You cannot.

Where's the data that backs up your claim?

You made an assertion. When challenged on it, you ran. I dont' have to disprove anything.

It's fun to watch you dance around like a bitch.

 

[Guno צְבִי]

Libs have an excuse for everything. But you're right, correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation. But what we do know for sure is, throughout history tax cuts have ALWAYS correlated with increased revenue. So, at the very least, we know tax cuts don't cause a decrease in revenue. Trump's tax cuts are no exception, as once again, tax cuts have coincided with increased federal revenues.

Crying libs libs libs, hey goober the white christstain party controls every branch of government , you rubes own it

 

[countryboy]

Where's the data that backs up your claim?

You made an assertion. When challenged on it, you ran. I dont' have to disprove anything.

It's fun to watch you dance around like a bitch.

I accept your concession. The data are in the receipts tables. Are you too lazy to look up the historical tax cuts and their correspondence to increased federal revenues?

Let me help, start with JFK.

I have not "ran", here I am. You aren't challenging anything, you are dodging. Stop projecting, and prove me wrong, or admit defeat.

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary

 

[CharacterAssassin]

I accept your concession. The data are in the receipts tables. Are you too lazy to look up the historical tax cuts and their correspondence to increased federal revenues?

Let me help, start with JFK.

I have not "ran", here I am. You aren't challenging anything, you are dodging. Stop projecting, and prove me wrong, or admit defeat.

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary

So, IOW, you admit you were talking out of your ass and no data whatsoever supports your claim. That link certainly doesn't, nor can you demonstrate that it does.

You haven't proven yourself right yet, ma'am, and until you do you'll just look like the tard you are.

Why are you running away from your own claim?

 

[TrippyHippy]

Tax cuts actually increase revenue.

By definition, they do not.

 

[LV426]

Libs have an excuse for everything. But you're right, correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation. But what we do know for sure is, throughout history tax cuts have ALWAYS correlated with increased revenue.

No. They. Fucking. Haven't.

And we have data as recent as 2001-4 showing they haven't.

Revenue was below 2000 levels for four straight years.

So your statement here is demonstrably untrue.

So why are you lying?

 

[LV426]

So, at the very least, we know tax cuts don't cause a decrease in revenue

Yes they do, and that is proven by the fact that revenue from 2001-4 was below revenue for 2000.

Also, there's this...which is the state budget of Kansas. If you recall back in 2012-13, Brownback passed massive tax cuts that suddenly created massive deficits. Then last year, Republicans in Kansas voted to abolish those tax cuts and magically, the budget went from red to black:



SB 30 is the repeal of the tax cuts. And look at that! The budget turns to surplus without the tax cuts.

Trump's tax cuts are no exception, as once again, tax cuts have coincided with increased federal revenues.

No they haven't.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

No. They. Fucking. Haven't.

And we have data as recent as 2001-4 showing they haven't.

Revenue was below 2000 levels for four straight years.

So your statement here is demonstrably untrue.

So why are you lying?

These tax cuts are nothing but societal wealth redistribution out, away from society into the hands of the global capitalist ruling industrial class.

 

[LV426]

Can you point to a specific period where tax cuts didn't coincide with an increase in revenue?

2001-2004:

Receipts (in billions)
2000: $2,025.2
2001: $1,991.1
2002: $1,853.1
2003: $1,782.3
2004: $1,880.1

Also, 1982-3:

1982: $617.8
1983: $600.6

So right there are five instances of revenue being below pre-tax cut levels.

How come nothing you say is true?