AOC in a NUT shell!

[Truth Detector]

If Conservative economic and fiscal theory had any merit, then 2018 would have seen GDP growth along what was promised, and an increase in revenues collected by the federal government.

GDP was twice that of the eight years of Obamunism you moron.

Unfortunately, GDP growth for 2018 was the same as it was in 2015 without a tax cut.

LIE and LAME; GDP for 2015 was an anemic 1.004%. 2018 = 3.1%. 3.1% Greater than 1.004% Moron.

2015 01 3.3317%
2015 02 3.3395%
2015 03 0.9639%
2015 04 0.4002%

2015 Average = 1.0044%

http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/var/rgdp-qtrchg

Also unfortunately, federal revenues for 2018 were 2% less than 2017.

LIE and LAME. Revenues were slightly higher in 2018. So you're a liar and a MORON. Yay you!

So based on that empirical evidence, what conclusion can we draw from the results of one year of Russia Tax Cut Conservative policy?

Based on your lying and ignorance about everything, we can conclude that you really are a hyper partisan moron on steroids and no one should take your bullshit seriously.

 

[Truth Detector]

I've done that PLENTY OF TIMES.

Government revenues for 2018 were below that of 2017
https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/file...ts/mts/mts.pdf

Receipts
Jan-2017: $344,069
Feb-2017: $171,713
Mar-2017: $216,584
Apr-2017: $455,605
May-2017: $240,418
Jun-2017: $388,660
Jul-2017: $232,040
Aug-2017: $226,311
Sep-2017: $348,722
Oct-2017: $235,341
Nov-2017: $208,374
Dec-2017: $325,797
Total-2017: $3,393,634

Receipts
Jan-2018: $361,038
Feb-2018: $155,623
Mar-2018: $210,832
Apr-2018: $510,447
May-2018: $217,075
Jun-2018: $316,278
Jul-2018: $225,266
Aug-2018: $219,115
Sep-2018: $343,559
Oct-2018: $252,692
Nov-2018: $205,961
Dec-2018: $312,584
Total-2018: $3,330,470

You can do math, right?

2018 revenues were 2% below 2017

Your link = Page Not Found. MORON

 

[Truth Detector]

I believe you're a posturing jackass.

We know you're a raving lunatic with an IQ that is below room temperature.

 

[Truth Detector]

Sure it would. A 70% top marginal tax rate would most definitely increase revenues to the federal government that it can use to spend on things like single payer, universal health care, free public colleges, and even part of a Green New Deal.

 

[Truth Detector]

So then your promise that wages would increase by $4,000-$9,000 was just snake oil to sell this rotten bill.

LINK to this claim shit-for-brains.

 

[Truth Detector]

I've done that PLENTY OF TIMES.

Government revenues for 2018 were below that of 2017
https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/file...ts/mts/mts.pdf

Receipts
Jan-2017: $344,069
Feb-2017: $171,713
Mar-2017: $216,584
Apr-2017: $455,605
May-2017: $240,418
Jun-2017: $388,660
Jul-2017: $232,040
Aug-2017: $226,311
Sep-2017: $348,722
Oct-2017: $235,341
Nov-2017: $208,374
Dec-2017: $325,797
Total-2017: $3,393,634

Receipts
Jan-2018: $361,038
Feb-2018: $155,623
Mar-2018: $210,832
Apr-2018: $510,447
May-2018: $217,075
Jun-2018: $316,278
Jul-2018: $225,266
Aug-2018: $219,115
Sep-2018: $343,559
Oct-2018: $252,692
Nov-2018: $205,961
Dec-2018: $312,584
Total-2018: $3,330,470

You can do math, right?

2018 revenues were 2% below 2017

So Revenues are lower by $63 million, 1.9%, and this is all because of this massivre tax reduction act? That is AWESOME.

I cannot wait to see the massive increase in revenue due to all the growth in GDP; unlike the malaise of the Obama years.

Tell me dumb fuck; when you are proven to be wrong again, will you be embarrassed. My guess is you will double down on stupid because you lack the IQ it takes to comprehend the obvious.

 

[Guno צְבִי]

Who wrote what she said, because we all know she doesn't speak well, kind of like Obama without a teleprompter.

 

[Nordberg]

AOC was intelligent in her questioning. She got directly involved in real problems. She did not get emotional of call names like the Repugs did. She hit 3 points directly and well. She was the best of questioners yesterday. Note of course, the Repubs had no questions. Just saying "liar liar pants on fire" is not how they should have used that opportunity. Cohen is a Reopublican and worked for the president.

 

[CFM]

Your hatred for others has been duly noted Wolfman!

No one could look any stupider than you here in the forum except for Text Drivers and Truth Deflector!

The 3 Stooges were smarter than you three people!

The average black person is smarter than you. Be reminded that the average black IQ is 85.

 

[cawacko]

There's a great discussion to be had on that topic. I'm not sure where I fall anymore in my economic beliefs. The too big to fail bailout destroyed my faith in both schools of thought. Clearly unfettered capitalism would lead to more and more of housing crisis type of fraudulent banking activities since even with regulation the fuckers sold out millions of investors, but it was also in part a response to being forced to loan to high risk pools. I still don't understand the "too big to fail" logic and I'm afraid I'm incapable of understanding it. My scenario would have seen the government preventing foreclosures during a transition to new bank ownership. Someone would have snapped up the failed banks. It's a lie, in my opinion, to say they were too big to fail.

If they meant it was too risky to allow the potential for a hostile enemy to acquire the assets, well that needed to be said in my opinion. I can't think of any other reason why a bank would be too big to fail.

You have any thoughts? We should start a thread, but I gotta run and do some estimates and a little repair for a few hours.

There are three schools of thought that I'm aware of. The Austrian school, the Chicago School of Economics (think Milton Friedman) and Keynesian. I don't think the bank bailout came from any particular economic school of thought other than those in power being afraid of the country's economy crashing on their watch.

I don't see anything wrong with you wanting to question what all these folks believe.

 

[tinfoil]

What I hear Conservatives say is that cutting taxes will;

increase tax revenue (it didn't last year)
bring forth 3%+ growth (it didn't last year)
grow the market (it didn't last year)
prevent outsourcing and offshoring (it didn't last year)
not result in record stock buybacks (it didn't last year)

I'm still seeking a credible Conservative economist. There don't appear to be any.

Can you show that all other variables remained static? If not, you can't say shit about one variable. Learn some statistics and what the difference between correlation and causation entails.

I will concede that tax cuts increasing revenues depends on the tax rate currently being past the center point of the laffer curve. Without the incentive to cheat at taxes outweighing the penalty for getting caught, the theory predicts compliance. We can assume that we are not over taxed in America if , with all other variables remaining unchanged or accounted for, the tax revenues did not increase with relaxed tax rates. It means people are not really cheating. Elect a dem and raise the taxes back up. Trump proved you can raise them.

 

[Wolverine]

Sure it would. A 70% top marginal tax rate would most definitely increase revenues to the federal government that it can use to spend on things like single payer, universal health care, free public colleges, and even part of a Green New Deal.

You are not that bright, how do you suppose anyone get across the ocean to Hawaii, the EU, anywhere for that matter. Taxing people at 70% is immortal and ridiculous, there would be nothing but service jobs left in the US but hey you could still NOT have a job which is what I suspect you want.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/feb/11/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-green-new-deal-and-the-u/

 

[Wolverine]

With that post, you are relegated to the kids table as you have nothing adult to contribute. You are just showing how correct I am because you can offer nothing of consequence! I do cling to the cross but I do not hump it!

 

[LV426]

Can you show that all other variables remained static?

What does that have to do with anything?

You're the ones who cut taxes and made all these promises of your tax cut.

Now you're trying to say that there are excuses for why your policy doesn't work, but the inherent flaw in your belief system is that your policy works when every variable is controlled. So that means, in order for your economic and fiscal policies to "work", you must also control every variable.

So since you're asking about other variables, you're tacitly admitting your policy doesn't work unless you control them.

I'm old enough to remember when Conservatives opposed any sort of constraints or control of the "free market".

 

[LV426]

I will concede that tax cuts increasing revenues depends on the tax rate currently being past the center point of the laffer curve.

The Laffer Curve is a joke, and there is no peak to it.

That's why Laffer was laughed out of Kansas.

There exists no empirical evidence from the last 40 years to support his theory of yours.

 

[LV426]

Without the incentive to cheat at taxes outweighing the penalty for getting caught, the theory predicts compliance.

The theory is wrong. That's what I'm saying. Your theory only works when you control behavior. So you would need to control how people act in order for your policy to "work". Aren't Conservatives opposed to controls in the economy?

 

[LV426]

You are not that bright, how do you suppose anyone get across the ocean to Hawaii, the EU, anywhere for that matter.

By airplane or boat.

Taxing people at 70% is immortal and ridiculous, there would be nothing but service jobs left in the US but hey you could still NOT have a job which is what I suspect you want.

So you are making a moral argument now...so you're not making an economic one. So your emotion is carrying you here. BTW - Reagan and Bush the Dumber were the ones who pushed the service economy. And a service economy is perfectly fine. Service workers are the new working class.

 

[Getin the ring]

I'm old enough to remember when Conservatives opposed any sort of constraints or control of the "free market".

but yet you are not old enough to relay a coherent thought in print.

The basic premise of a tax cut is so you get to keep more of your money, which you will spend. To buy things for you and your family, to contribute to the economy,
people working, goods being sold, etc.

That you don't understand that, and insist that you would rather the government keep more of your money is baffling.

I surmise that is just not a realistic wish of anyone, and that you are just so miserable, and triggered by Trump that he could offer you unlimited wealth and you would still whine.



why is that?

 

[LV426]

The basic premise of a tax cut is so you get to keep more of your money, which you will spend.

But that didn't happen last year.

Revenues declined, and GDP was below 3%.

So the basic premise of your fundamental belief is disproved by the data over the last year.

 

[LV426]

That you don't understand that, and insist that you would rather the government keep more of your money is baffling.

The government isn't "keeping" the revenue, they are spending it.

Also, economic growth last year was below 3%, despite promises it would exceed at least 3%.

So your premise, that people will spend their tax cut, is disproved by the data.

So since that premise is bullshit, what else do you believe that is also bullshit?