Do you support cutting taxes, even if it increases the deficit?

[Grizzly Adams]

Anyone can look at page 1 & 2.

And by doing so they can see I've said nothing like what your lies claim.

You were bothered that you were asked what services you wanted cut as a result of lower revenue

What services get cut as a result of lower revenue is irrelevant to the point that the spending is what causes the debt.

Again, it is absurd that you argue cutting taxes does not cause lower revenue,

I never said that. You continue to lie. Why?

If you have lower revenue then you have to cut services if you don't want higher debt.....

As the "services" are the spending, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING THE WHOLE ****ING TIME.

If you can't argue with some modicum of intellectual integrity, you end up posting hypocritical nonsense.

Says the guy whose name is "Gimmesometruth" but does nothing but spew falsehoods.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

And this was the point I made, thats exactly what I said YOU said.

Then why are you arguing with me?

LOL....the lower tax rate caused the lower revenue to begin with, you leave that part out.

No, I don't.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

And by doing so they can see I've said nothing like what your lies claim.

It is exactly as I said, and you repeated the argument on this page.

What services get cut as a result of lower revenue is irrelevant to the point that the spending is what causes the debt.

No, it is not "irrelevant", revenue is integral to the math of debt. This is beyond stupid.

I never said that (cutting taxes does not cause lower revenue). You continue to lie. Why?

So again, holding all things equal, cutting taxes does not cause lower revenue?

As the "services" are the spending, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING THE WHOLE ****ING TIME.

I know, thats what I said, which again it is so weird how when you have lower revenue, you got upset when asked what services you wanted cut.

Says the guy whose name is "Gimmesometruth" but does nothing but spew falsehoods.

When you spot them, let me know.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

It is exactly as I said, and you repeated the argument on this page.

Lies, lies, lies. You seem only capable of lying.

No, it is not "irrelevant", revenue is integral to the math of debt. This is beyond stupid.

Sure, but the final part of that equation is the spending. When revenue decreases, spending must be cut. If spending is not cut in response to reduced revenue, debt follows because the spending wasn't adjusted. The spending caused the debt.

So again, holding all things equal, cutting taxes does not cause lower revenue?

Of course it can. Why are you asking me this irrelevant question?

I know, thats what I said, which again it is so weird how when you have lower revenue, you got upset when asked what services you wanted cut.

Why would I need to answer the question in the first place?

When you spot them, let me know.

I've already done so. You seem so infatuated with what I've done "on this page," feel free to indulge yourself and see where I've done so. I even told you when you did it.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

LOL....the lower tax rate caused the lower revenue to begin with, you leave that part out.

No, I don't.

Yes, you left out the lower tax rate premise from your comment:

No. Decreases in revenue must be compensated for by reductions in spending. If revenue decreases, but spending is not adjusted, the debt is caused by the failure to adjust spending, not the revenue reduction. Why? Because the debt hasn't happened until the money is spent.


Again, a little integrity in your posts would go a long way.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Yes, you left out the lower tax rate premise from your comment:

No. Decreases in revenue must be compensated for by reductions in spending. If revenue decreases, but spending is not adjusted, the debt is caused by the failure to adjust spending, not the revenue reduction. Why? Because the debt hasn't happened until the money is spent.

I didn't "leave it out" in the same manner I didn't "leave out" Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. It's not relevant to the point. Spending is what causes debt. When revenues fall, whether due to tax cuts, recession, or Martian invasion, spending must be adjusted to account for it. What specifically gets cut is also beyond the point.

Again, a little integrity in your posts would go a long way.

Heal thyself.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Lies, lies, lies. You seem only capable of lying.

irony

Sure, but the final part of that equation is the spending.

Um, no, spending and revenue are the variables, the sum, the "final part" is "Debt " or Surplus.

Perhaps the math is hard.

When revenue decreases, spending must be cut.

I know, which is why it was so weird that you were bothered to state what services you would cut at the beginning of the thread. But right now I'm still trying to get you to admit lower tax rates, the initiating factor, causes lower revenue.

If spending is not cut in response to reduced revenue, debt follows because the spending wasn't adjusted. The spending caused the debt.

Chicken egg, but the initiating event is the lower tax rates.

Of course it can. Why are you asking me this irrelevant question?

Because you were bothered that anyone pointed out that cuts cause lower revenue, so much you demanded I show you held that view. Now you openly admit it. It is weird, it is intellectually dishonest posting, but I'm use to it, I just don't get why you insist on posting like this over and over.

Why would I need to answer the question in the first place?

Here you go again, you have been emphasizing cutting spending at the end of the thread, but at the start, it bothered you to discuss it. Weird, dishonest posting, all the time.

I've already done so. You seem so infatuated with what I've done "on this page," feel free to indulge yourself and see where I've done so. I even told you when you did it.

You have confirmed everything I pointed to.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

I didn't "leave it out" in the same manner I didn't "leave out" Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. It's not relevant to the point.

It is the basis of the argument, from the start of the thread when you claimed lower rates do not cause debt.

Spending is what causes debt.

This is hamster wheel shit, round and round.

When revenues fall, whether due to tax cuts,

That was the premise, dont move the goalpost, and the lower revenue is due to lower rates, stop changing the argument.

recession, or Martian invasion,

goalpost move, distraction, the premise remains lower tax rates cause the decline in revenue.

spending must be adjusted to account for it.

False, you can not cut taxes in the first place.

What specifically gets cut is also beyond the point.

You didn't want to discuss any cuts at the start.

Heal thyself.

I'm not lacking in integrity in this debate, you have not shown it.

 

[rahl]

No. Decreases in revenue must be compensated for by reductions in spending. If revenue decreases, but spending is not adjusted, the debt is caused by the failure to adjust spending, not the revenue reduction. Why? Because the debt hasn't happened until the money is spent.

Nope. It’s because of the revenue reduction. It helps if you understood how budgets are passed, and when revenues come in.

 

[JoeyJoystick]

No. Decreases in revenue must be compensated for by reductions in spending. If revenue decreases, but spending is not adjusted, the debt is caused by the failure to adjust spending, not the revenue reduction. Why? Because the debt hasn't happened until the money is spent.

Nope.

If you can not pay off your mortgage anymore you can do 2 things.

- Pay more.
- Earn more.

If you loose your job, than loss of income is the sole reason why at that moment you have payment difficulties.
If you your Mortgage goes up than your spending is the sole reason you have payment difficulties.

You are saying that if you loose your job the reason for your financial difficulties is the mortgage payments are too high. But sorry, it does not work that way mate.

With that you also limit yourself by allowing only one solution to the problem at hand. You would negotiate a lower mortgage. Now that is of course a great way of dealing with it. Ignoring the fact that you can also resolve your financial issues by increasing income is a serious loss on your end because you are limiting your own choices. Lol. So stick to it if you want, but it doesn't sound like a smart choice if you ask me.

Joey

 

[NWRatCon]

Again, a little integrity in your posts would go a long way.

Any

 

[Stinger]

The actually result of tax cuts is they add to the federal revenue...the problem is both parties when flush with federal money tend to spend it.

And the realty is the Reps less so than the Dems and why they once in recent history had us into surpluses and once again headed there at a paltry $161B heading back into surplus but then the Dems took back the Congress and reversed course.

 

[Stinger]

It looks like the / quote at the beginning of your comment messed up the format upon reply so I’ll put your stuff in italics:

Sorry didn't notice the error...........

I agree that Bush pushed back against some items that Democrats preferred, but as I stated earlier, the reason for the huge increase in the deficit spending was due to the Great Recession.

The recession was 2/3's over when Obama took office and got his huge unnecessary stimulus spending and had ended before any was even spent and then they kept it over $1,000B for the next THREE YEARS producing the worst economic recovery in modern history especially compared to the Bush43/Rep 2001 response and recovery.

Yes, there were delays in responding to the recession when Republicans were losing control because they didn’t want to be blamed for spending that they knew was needed. As a result of Republican foot dragging when Obama took office the country was in horrible shape, the economy was hemorrhaging more than 700,000 jobs per month resulting in the unemployment rate hitting 10%, Detroit was going bankrupt, the banking system was unraveling, housing prices were crashing and the stock market was crashing. Everyone was scared.

Republican foot dragging? What Republican foot dragging? When Obama took office because he and his fellow Dems did not pass the measures the could have mitigated the depth and length of the recession he got what HE VOTED FOR. He claimed that if he got his stimulus passed it would hold unemployment to just 8% for one quarter and then fall again. But as you noted with all the money being handed out just like when Biden became President, people didn't go back to work and unemployment hit that 10% and stayed over 8% for the next 3 years. Want to compare that to the Bush43/Rep response in the 2001 dot.com/recession/9-11 attack economy?

You are correct that Democrats decided to spend the money necessary (actually in February, not March) to put the economy back together. As a measure of how bad things were when Obama took over the stock market......................................

The bill was passed in February and signed by President OBAMA including his huge unnecessary stimulus just so he could say he RESCUED the economy as Biden did after COVID. YES I agree we can stipulate that the response to the 2008/2009 recession was sorely lacking and as a result was longer and deeper than necessary and the recovery was one of the worst in modern history. And in doing so took that last Rep deficit of that measly $161B to their HUGE $1,400B

Again, the deficit was due to the Great Recession.

And the depth and length and horrible recovery due to the policies and lack thereof by the Democrat Congress and then President.

Trump inherited a strong economy. Biden inherited an economy with lots of Covid problems. Those problems were not necessarily Trump’s fault, but it was certainly not a normal strong economy.

Trump inherited an economy that had FINALLY started to shows signs of getting back on track after the Rep took back the Congress and stymied any more harm Obama could do to it. Biden inherit and economy that had just BOOMED out of Covid with Operation Warp Speed having accomplished getting the vaccines out and all he had to do was get out of the way. Instead he passed his HUGE unnecessary spending sending us into Bidenflation and kept people from going back to work supporting all his Dem Governor buddies out there, but then we can't really blame Joey can we since he wasn't really running things...........we should point our arrows at Mrs. Biden and Hunter.

I don’t fault either Trump or Biden for approving Covid relief. Look again at the chart in post 129. It separates out Covid vs non Covid, perhaps you missed that. Non-Covid legislation that Trump approved (prior to Covid) contributed more than twice the amount to the debt than Non Covid legislation approved by Biden.

Oh we didn't even need Trump's second round but I see what he tried to do to prevent Biden and the Dems from passing an even BIGGER which but then they went right ahead and did that and more. And no the deficits for the first three years of Trump's terms were not bigger that Biden and the fact remains then as now Trump was requesting LESS spending than Congress approved. Again Congress has control over fiscal policy more so than Presidents.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Trump's 2017 tax cuts for the wealthy added $8 trillion to the federal debt/deficit.

Trump added $8.4 trillion to the national debt: Analysis

Trump's 2025 tax cuts for the wealthy will add another $4 trillion to the federal debt/deficit, plus remove Medicaid/SNAP benefits for up to 10 million Americans.

The New Cost for 2025 Tax Cut Extensions - $4 Trillion

 

[iliveonramen]

It's a generational thing. There's a group of Americans that have gotten a free ride their entire life. Low taxes and the same government support on the credit card of future generations. Unfortunately it's my generation and younger generations that are going to get the crunch.

 

[Stinger]

Higher deficits due to reduced revenue, we know.

They hit RECORD high increases, prove that those revenue increases slowed and explain how Bush could have and should have vetoed the FY2009 therefore the $1,400 is attributable to him instead of Obama.

 

[Stinger]

Yes. Bullshit. Every time they cut taxes, since Reagan in 1981, revenues went down (below expectations), and the deficit went up. Cause, effect.

Tax Cuts Are Primarily Responsible for the Increasing Debt Ratio

Without the Bush and Trump tax cuts, debt as a percentage of the economy would be declining permanently.

www.americanprogress.org

It's pretty ****ing simple. Every economic chart shows this. Even CATO's, although they refuse to acknowledge it.

Still not the subject of the thread.

It would be nice if proponents had a scintilla of economic education.

No they went up ACTUALLY hitting double digit increases after the Gingrich/Kasich and Bush43/Rep Congress, still the subject of the thread about supporting cutting taxes.

 

[Rogue Valley]

They hit RECORD high increases, prove that those revenue increases slowed and explain how Bush could have and should have vetoed the FY2009 therefore the $1,400 is attributable to him instead of Obama.

The Trump Tax Cuts Led to Record-Low, Not High, Revenues Outside of a Recession

Federal revenues lag far behind pre-tax cut budget projections.

www.americanprogress.org

 

[Stinger]

The Trump Tax Cuts Led to Record-Low, Not High, Revenues Outside of a Recession

Federal revenues lag far behind pre-tax cut budget projections.

www.americanprogress.org

Bush and Gingrich and Kasich are not Trump nor was Trump President then................

 

[Stinger]

UE was at 6.4% in jan '21, gdp had barely recovered to the late '19 level.

Unemployment was already falling 4th 2020 and was 3.5% in my county and 4% state both run by Republicans who opened them back up.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Cutting taxes does not increase the debt.

Of course it does!

for christs sake man you used to be a good poster......what happenned.

Spending beyond revenues is what increases the debt, in all cases.

Right, cutting revenue increases debt.

And dont give me that nonsense that cutting taxes increases revenue.

That is objectively false and has been proven so

 

[Stinger]

Um, thats a big what if, unfortunately the recession kicked our head in and depressed revenues for years. And as far as the "stimulus", it was not big enough to reverse the job losses, which took 8 years to regain.

No it was on the brink at $161B and falling rapidly. Obama stated that if passed it would hold unemployment to just 8%.............if failed to do so and then it stayed over 8% for the next THREE YEARS. How BIG did it need to be how much higher deficit and dept and stop complaining about Reps if that is you are claiming we should have done.

 

[Stinger]

It’s so funny, you still don’t know now a bill becomes law

Like your claim and ex-President gets to signs budgets passed after he leaves office...............and you claim I don't know how they are passed..............you are too much.

 

[Stinger]

Working real hard to deflect from the thread topic, I see....

You need to look again as to which thread we are in

Do you support cutting taxes, even if it increases the deficit?​

 

[antiquity]

And the realty is the Reps less so than the Dems and why they once in recent history had us into surpluses and once again headed there at a paltry $161B heading back into surplus but then the Dems took back the Congress and reversed course.

Yes...when the deficit was zero during the Clinton administration it was a republican controlled congress, for the first time in about 40 years, that did that...along with the 'Contract with America' and Clinton signing the bills.
Clinton signed a line item veto and New York democrats went to court whining so much it got over turned.