Rep. Alexandria Occasion Cortez has 20zK in student loan debt

[Flash]

I've also noticed over the last couple months, you've slid pretty hard into far right talking points and conversation framing. You argue every single point made by right-wingers, Conservatives, and Trumpists.

Why is that?

No I haven't. What is one right-wing talking point? You have always used every left-wing talking point while I am very critical of both since they attempt to spin, mislead, and hide the truth to win an argument.

You make wild assumptions or outright lie about my statements. Showing a revenue increase following a tax cut is not the same as saying tax cuts cause revenue increases. And it does not mean I supported the tax cut as you erroneously claim just to be misleading.

 

[Flash]

Why would a tax cut need time to work since its direct effect is immediate?

Because a lot of the impact is seen in April when taxes are paid:

April 2016: $438,432
April 2017: $455,605
April 2018: $510,447

Those advocating tax cuts to increase revenue are not talking about one year only. So claiming FY2019 saw a revenue increase because there was no tax cut misses the whole point. Those advocating tax cuts to raise revenue are talking about longer-term increases, not just the year following the cut. So, revenue increases five of six years following the 1982 cuts was beneficial (to those wanting more revenue).

Revenue increases in FY2018 and FY2019 are beneficial to those wanting more revenue (regardless of which months resulted in the increase).

 

[Flash]

I didn't believe him. But you did. You believed this stupid tax cut would grow the economy, except that economic growth for 2018 was no better than 2015, when we didn't have a tax cut, and not much better than the prior year, which also didn't have a tax cut.

If you've ever said that tax cuts cause economic growth because of letting people keep more of what they earned, then you got bamboozled.

Another lie on your part. I never supported a tax cut without equal spending cuts.

 

[Flash]

But if tax cuts supposedly increase consumer spending and activity, why would any spending need to be cut? Shouldn't the tax cut stimulate more spending, thus leading to more revenues? That's what you've been arguing this whole time.

Spending needs to be cut to reduce government expenditures to allow more of the economy to be based on consumer spending rather than government bureaucracy and government programs whose only benefit is to the employees working in that programs. More government revenues is what we should avoid, not increase.

 

[Flash]

But they don't.

In fact, in every instance over the last 40 years, the tax cut has either reduced revenue from previous years (as it did from 1982-3, 2000-4, and in 2018), or prompted an economic bubble (1997-2000, 2004-7).

Why are you cherry picking the years to make your numbers come out? What about the Revenue Act of 1964 which was followed by steady revenue increases? Why don't tax cuts count that occurred over 40 years ago? Because it proves tax cuts don't always result in declines.

Top rates were reduced from 91% to 70% and corporate rates were reduced from 52% to 48%. You ignore the examples that prove you wrong.

 

[Flash]

Nothing Nazis do is inherent;y peaceful because they're, you know, Nazis.

So I'll tell ya what, Flash. You can leap to the defense of Nazis, and we'll pigeonhole you into being a Nazi lover. Then you and your new Nazi pals can all sit around and talk about how much you respect each other.

This is the worst kind of phony argument. I leap to the defense of any person who somebody wants to assault or murder for any reason but especially somebody who is no threat to anybody except that they find his politically views wrong.

I never said Nazis are inherently peaceful because that is as stupid as saying they are inherently a threat like you did.

You need to stick to your economic arguments. They at least make some sense as opposed to your views of constitutional and criminal law which are less knowledgeable than an elementary student. They are too crazy to even debate.

You can call me a Nazi lover if you want. I was called worse when I opposed segregation.

 

[LV426]

Showing a revenue increase following a tax cut is not the same as saying tax cuts cause revenue increases.

But you didn't show that either!

The Russia Tax Cut started January 2018. Starting January 20818, revenues were down $16B. So revenue following the most recent tax cut was down.

 

[LV426]

Because a lot of the impact is seen in April when taxes are paid:

April 2016: $438,432
April 2017: $455,605
April 2018: $510,447

See, again, you're obfuscating!

What about January - March, and May - September?

Those showed revenue DOWN $16B.

 

[LV426]

Those advocating tax cuts to increase revenue are not talking about one year only.

Yes they are!

They always are!

And secondly, revenue growth in the years following tax cuts is no better than revenue growth in years that don't follow tax cuts.

Unless there's a tax cut-induced recession, revenue is going to grow every year anyway.

Yet, after every tax cut the last 40 years, revenue was below what it was the year prior to the tax cut.

AFTER. EVERY. ONE.

So taking two steps back to take one step forward leaves you how many steps behind?

 

[Rusty Bell 65]

See, again, you're obfuscating!

What about January - March, and May - September?

Those showed revenue DOWN $16B.

Tell the stupid bitch to pay her loans off, you worthless twit.
You've run this thread off course long enough. Get back to the topic.

 

[LV426]

So claiming FY2019 saw a revenue increase because there was no tax cut misses the whole point.

NOPE. WRONG.

You can look at any year following a tax cut year, and any year that doesn't follow a tax cut year and see virtually the same growth in revenues.

You're being lazy now because doing the work is going to show what a fucking fraud you are.

Tax cut effects are immediate, not lingering.

 

[LV426]

Revenue increases in FY2018 and FY2019 are beneficial to those wanting more revenue (regardless of which months resulted in the increase).

Revenue was down following the tax cut in FY 2018, and it took FY 2019 to get revenue back to grow again. So you're arguing it was a good thing to take two steps back to take one step forward, and you argue that because you're an idiot.

 

[LV426]

Another lie on your part. I never supported a tax cut without equal spending cuts.

Why do there have to be spending cuts? Shouldn't cutting taxes produce all this economic growth because you're letting people "keep more of what they earned"? And wouldn't doing so naturally translate to increased consumer spending and thus, increased economic activity and revenues?

Why does spending have to be cut in order for a tax cut "to work"?

 

[LV426]

Spending needs to be cut to reduce government expenditures to allow more of the economy to be based on consumer spending rather than government bureaucracy

Ah, so then what consumer spending replaces spending on the FDA? or the SEC? or the IRS? Or the FAA? What consumer spending rises to replace cuts to infrastructure spending? What consumer spending replaces SNAP? What consumer spending replaces food inspectors? What consumer spending replaces Medicare and Medicaid?

You don't know shit about this. You're a fucking idiot.

 

[LV426]

Spending needs to be cut to reduce government expenditures to allow more of the economy to be based on consumer spending rather than government bureaucracy and government programs whose only benefit is to the employees working in that programs. More government revenues is what we should avoid, not increase.

You just have an inherent bias towards government because your mind was so weak it was influenced by 40 years of Conservative anti-government propaganda. You don't think this shit through fully, which is why you have to do things like exercise sophistry and act in bad faith.

What a total loser.

 

[LV426]

Why are you cherry picking the years to make your numbers come out? What about the Revenue Act of 1964 which was followed by steady revenue increases? .

Revenue increased because government spending increased by 50%, you sophist fuck.

 

[LV426]

Top rates were reduced from 91% to 70% and corporate rates were reduced from 52% to 48%. You ignore the examples that prove you wrong.

You ignore the fact that government spending increased by 50%.

50%, you stupid fuckwad.

 

[Althea]

Indeed, congrats.

The ones who really profit are ones like Obama and The Crooked Clinton’s who entered the White House as hundred-aires and are now multi-milllionaires.

Pay for Play worked great.

By all means...do tell.

 

[LV426]

This is the worst kind of phony argument. I leap to the defense of any person who somebody wants to assault or murder for any reason but especially somebody who is no threat to anybody except that they find his politically views wrong.

I never said Nazis are inherently peaceful because that is as stupid as saying they are inherently a threat like you did.

You need to stick to your economic arguments. They at least make some sense as opposed to your views of constitutional and criminal law which are less knowledgeable than an elementary student. They are too crazy to even debate.

You can call me a Nazi lover if you want. I was called worse when I opposed segregation.

To Flash, Inglorious Basterds was a tragedy.

You opposed segregation? How'd you do that when you're Gen X like me, and weren't even alive? You "opposed segregation" when you were nothing more than a mutated, deformed sperm cell, swimming around your shitty father's saggy, limp nutsack? You "opposed segregation" when you were an egg in your mother's decrepit ovaries? You "opposed segregation" as you slithered out of her diseased and deformed womb? What a fuckin' phony.

 

[Althea]

Easy if the federal government of which she an employee of wipes out all student debt she would benefit from it hence a conflict of interest.

Honestly...what are the odds of this happening?