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

[LV426]

You assured us in an earlier post that tax cut advocates only care about the year following the cut.

What post? What are you talking about? Tax cut advocates predict that we'd see 3% growth in the year following the cut, and that the cut would pay for itself in increased economic activity.

But you now want to change your argument to agree with me that longer-term effects are more important.

You are losing control of your argument and it's forcing you to make arguments that make no sense. You cannot attribute any increase in revenues to a tax cut without making the argument that tax cuts pay for themselves, which you are saying isn't the case because tax cuts reduce revenues, just like they have every time they've been done since 1980.

However, the longer-term effect of increased spending did not occur until after the revenue increase in 1965, so the spending did not cause the revenue increase.

Of course the spending caused the revenue increase because revenues come from spending.

You're way out of your depth here.

So all your insults that spending increased 50% was a bunch of BS because it had nothing to do with the revenue increase. 1964-taxes were cut. 1965: spending declined, revenue increased.

As I said, this is an outlier. And you're argument is also that the tax cut drove long-term revenue growth. That's what you've been arguing. But long-term, spending increased, and revenues come from spending.

 

[Flash]

But there's no way in hell you can attribute any of that to a tax cut.

Revenue grows, then taxes are cut which sets revenue back, then revenue grows again at pretty much the same pace as it did prior to the tax cut, the only difference being that you've taken at least a couple steps back and have to make up the ground you lost. Revenue growth in the years following that setback aren't any better (and are actually worse in some cases) than if you hadn't touched revenues at all and allowed the growth to happen organically, as it was.

Furthermore, the effect for consumers from a tax cut is immediate; meaning they see it in their paychecks instantly. So if you get a tax cut and it shows up in your paycheck, why do we have to wait years for that immediate tax cut to have a positive effect on consumer spending? Nevermind all the data that shows household debt increases and personal savings decreases following tax cuts since 1980. By letting people keep more of what they earn (EYE ROLL), you put them into debt or deeper into debt and you have no real economic gains to show for it.

Is an example of those immediate effects Obama's 2010 tax cuts that cut payroll taxes by 2%, $55 billion in industry tax cuts, and extended the Bush tax cuts and saw revenue increase in 2011-2016?

 

[LV426]

Government spending decreased the year after the tax cut while revenues increased.

Why do I get the sense that you're not being 100% truthful about the tax cut in 1964?

So, let's break down how you're being untruthful:

The first untruth is that the tax cut of 1964 took effect in 1964; the 70% lower rate actually took effect January 1st, 1965...three months into the FY (boy this sounds familiar, doesn't it?) It was passed and signed into law February 1964, but its 70% top tax rate provision took effect beginning January 1965; so just like the other tax cut, some months of that FY were subject to it, and some weren't. So while revenue did grow in the FY of 1965, just like with the Russia Tax Cut, some of the revenue wasn't subject to the rate cut. What you didn't do was check your work. So you're instead making a bad faith argument by saying that revenue grew following the tax cut, but you're not making that argument from a place supported with facts and data. What happened was just like what happened in FY 2018...revenue grew because of months that weren't subject to a tax cut. So you had three months of non-tax cut revenue doing all the heavy lifting for the 9 months of tax cut revenue that had the tax cut. So your argument is in the toilet because you were too fucking lazy to do the work.

The second untruth is the revenue growth...you point out that from 1964 to 1965, revenue grew from $112.6 in 1964 to $116.8 in 1965, or growth of 4%. Compare that to the growth from 1963 to 1964 which saw revenue go from $106.6 to $112.6, or growth of 6%. In fact, the tax cut year saw among the weakest revenue growth of the 60's. Now, from 1965-1966, revenue grew from $116.8 to $130.8, or 12% but that's because spending grew from $118.2 to $132.5, or 12%.

So basically, the same lying argument you're making about FY 2018 revenue being up following the tax cut (while leaving out that three months of that FY are what accounts for the revenue growth), you're now making about Fy 1965. A FY that saw among the weakest revenue growth of the decade following the tax cut. Revenue that only grew by 4%, bolstered by revenues that were collected prior to that tax cut to 70% taking effect, just like what happened in FY 2018.

 

[Flash]

Of course the spending caused the revenue increase because revenues come from spending.

What? The tax cut occurred in 1965 and revenue increased and spending declined that year.

Your claim that "revenues come from spending" is irrelevant when the spending increase did not occur until after the tax cut and revenue increase. Spending cannot cause a revenue increase unless it occurs before the increase.

You want to attribute cause to something that occurred after the fact. Your logic is getting worse. At least your dropped your argument about constitutional law when I proved you didn't have a clue.

 

[LV426]

Is an example of those immediate effects Obama's 2010 tax cuts that cut payroll taxes by 2%, $55 billion in industry tax cuts, and extended the Bush tax cuts and saw revenue increase in 2011-2016?

My argument always has been that those at the top should be paying higher taxes. You know why revenue grew for Obama? Because he let the tax cuts on the wealthy expire. So you stupidly and dishonestly argue Obama extended the Bush Tax Cuts but what you leave out is that he let the tax cuts for those at the top expire.

You never, ever, ever give the full truth in anything you post here.

It's always hackneyed.

You never post honestly or with integrity.

Everything with you is always a game of concealing exculpatory information to make a deliberately false argument that serves no other purpose than ego comfort.

You're a total piece of shit.

 

[LV426]

The tax cut occurred in 1965 and revenue increased and spending declined that year.

Just like what happened in FY 2018, revenue increased in FY 1965 because three months of that FY weren't subject to the cut to a 70% top rate.

So you're making the same lying, dishonest argument you made before about FY 2018, only to have to eat a plate of shit for neglecting to mention that 25% of the FY didn't have a tax cut, and thus, saw revenue gains.

You would think you would have learned your lesson from that fuckup but here you are, making the same lazy mistake again to make a lazy, false, dishonest argument in favor of dogma.

 

[Flash]

My argument always has been that those at the top should be paying higher taxes. You know why revenue grew for Obama? Because he let the tax cuts on the wealthy expire. So you stupidly and dishonestly argue Obama extended the Bush Tax Cuts but what you leave out is that he let the tax cuts for those at the top expire.

You never, ever, ever give the full truth in anything you post here.

It's always hackneyed.

You never post honestly or with integrity.

Everything with you is always a game of concealing exculpatory information to make a deliberately false argument that serves no other purpose than ego comfort.

You're a total piece of shit.

And you completely ignore the increased revenue coming from the payroll tax cut, the college tuition tax credit, the industry specific tax cut, or the $288 billion from the 2009 cut.

 

[Flash]

Just like what happened in FY 2018, revenue increased in FY 1965 because three months of that FY weren't subject to the cut to a 70% top rate.

So you're making the same lying, dishonest argument you made before about FY 2018, only to have to eat a plate of shit for neglecting to mention that 25% of the FY didn't have a tax cut, and thus, saw revenue gains.

You would think you would have learned your lesson from that fuckup but here you are, making the same lazy mistake again to make a lazy, false, dishonest argument in favor of dogma.

In one post you want to use revenue only for selected months, in another you use fiscal year, in another you jump to long-term impact based on whatever is convenient.

 

[LV426]

Your claim that "revenues come from spending" is irrelevant when the spending increase did not occur until after the tax cut and revenue increase. Spending cannot cause a revenue increase unless it occurs before the increase.

What?

Stop.

You're being dumb on purpose now.

Furthermore, just like what happened in FY 2018, FY 1965 saw revenue gains because 25% of the FY wasn't subject to that rate cut.

The 1964 tax cut didn't take effect until January 1st, 1965, not October 1st 1964.

 

[LV426]

You want to attribute cause to something that occurred after the fact. Your logic is getting worse. At least your dropped your argument about constitutional law when I proved you didn't have a clue.

What's happening is that you are either too lazy or too dishonest to actually do the work necessary here.

You flatly and dumbly say that revenue grew following the tax cut in FY 1965, but just like with FY 2018, you're counting pre-tax cut revenues in with post-tax cut revenues, and the pre-tax cut revenues are skewing revenue growth.

You didn't do the work, Flash.

You didn't do the work because you're lazy.

 

[Flash]

Furthermore, just like what happened in FY 2018, FY 1965 saw revenue gains because 25% of the FY wasn't subject to that rate cut.

The 1964 tax cut didn't take effect until January 1st, 1965, not October 1st 1964.

You are completely changing your argument that a 50% spending increase caused the revenue increase.

 

[LV426]

And you completely ignore the increased revenue coming from the payroll tax cut, the college tuition tax credit, the industry specific tax cut, or the $288 billion from the 2009 cut.

Revenue doesn't come from a tax cut. Tax cuts reduce revenues, Flash.

 

[LV426]

In one post you want to use revenue only for selected months, in another you use fiscal year, in another you jump to long-term impact based on whatever is convenient.

Flash, you are arguing that tax cuts increase revenues by dumbly pointing at the revenue for FY 1965 and saying "see, it grew". But you do that in a vaccuum because you're not taking into account that the entire FY didn't have a tax cut. That 3 months of revenue was collected that wasn't subject to that tax cut. So by saying that revenue grew in 1965 without saying that is because three months of that FY didn't have a tax cut, you're making a dishonest, lying argument.

If one of your shitty students did that in a paper, would pass them? Would you give your student an A if they wrote a paper where they neglected to mention key parts of data that effectively undermine the paper's conclusion? Because that's what you're doing here, bruh.

 

[LV426]

You are completely changing your argument that a 50% spending increase caused the revenue increase.

It did cause the revenue increase in the years following.

You were arguing that there are long-term effects on revenues of tax cuts. By pointing out that spending grew 50% from 1964-1969, you cannot attribute that revenue growth following the tax cut in 1965 to the tax cut, dingus.

 

[Flash]

It did cause the revenue increase in the years following.

You were arguing that there are long-term effects on revenues of tax cuts. By pointing out that spending grew 50% from 1964-1969, you cannot attribute that revenue growth following the tax cut in 1965 to the tax cut, dingus.

Spending grew because of government spending increases with large increases in the deficit. In 1965 the deficit was only $-1.4 and by 1968 it was $-25.2. Between 1965-1968 revenue increased by $36.2 while spending increased by $59.9. Spending increased much more than revenues because of borrowing.

 

[Flash]

Flash, you are arguing that tax cuts increase revenues by dumbly pointing at the revenue for FY 1965 and saying "see, it grew". But you do that in a vaccuum because you're not taking into account that the entire FY didn't have a tax cut. That 3 months of revenue was collected that wasn't subject to that tax cut. So by saying that revenue grew in 1965 without saying that is because three months of that FY didn't have a tax cut, you're making a dishonest, lying argument.

If one of your shitty students did that in a paper, would pass them? Would you give your student an A if they wrote a paper where they neglected to mention key parts of data that effectively undermine the paper's conclusion? Because that's what you're doing here, bruh.

Revenue grew in FY 1965 regardless of which months it occurred in. Now you are switching back to measuring revenue by months rather than fiscal year.

Previously you said revenue grew in 1965 because government spending grew 50%. When shown that spending declined in 1965 rather than growing 50% you now declare revenue did not grow in 1965 except for some months. Your arguments change as your facts change.

 

[Flash]

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.

You idiot. I'm not Gen X. Your assumptions about generation are as bad as your economics and constitutional law.

The more you post the more your conclusions are proven totally BS.

 

[Flash]

So by saying that revenue grew in 1965 without saying that is because three months of that FY didn't have a tax cut, you're making a dishonest, lying argument.

You declared revenue grew in 1965 without saying it is because three months didn't have a tax cut.

LV426: "Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
"Revenue increased because government spending increased by 50%, you sophist fuck."

We both claimed revenue increased without breaking it down by month. You were the only one declaring revenue grew because spending increased by 50%.

I didn't break it down by month because I just use fiscal year the way everybody measures revenue.

You only broke it down by month because that was the only way to get your facts to come out. But there was no way you could manipulate the numbers to show any 50% government spending increase which did not happen until 1968.

There was also no way to show a 50% spending increase caused the 1965 revenue increase. If spending causes revenue increases it has to actually occur before revenue increases.