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

[Gimmesometruth]

Oil prices are 100% controlled by OPEC.

No, they have a large influence based up their market share....but go on...

..when OPEC cuts oil supply the price of oil goes up.

Yes, depending on demand and what other suppliers do....but go on...

When the oil production goes up prices go down and the US oil production has nothing to do with the price at the pump.

Well now you are talking about gasoline, and the gas you buy today is made from oil purchased months ago, each region of the US is supplied with gas from different refiners, each market has its own different variables...it is not that simple.

But what is your point? We were discussing the inputs to the US inflation of '21-'23.

 

[antiquity]

No, they have a large influence based up their market share....but go on...

Yes, depending on demand and what other suppliers do....but go on...

Well now you are talking about gasoline, and the gas you buy today is made from oil purchased months ago, each region of the US is supplied with gas from different refiners, each market has its own different variables...it is not that simple.

But what is your point? We were discussing the inputs to the US inflation of '21-'23.

Actually I was responding to the poster who said Putin/Gaza cause the price of gas to go up, which they had little influence on the oil prices. But I will repeat for you, the 13 OPEC countries controls the prices on how much they produce.

which OPEC nation do we get the most oil in the world - Search Videos

www.bing.com

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Actually I was responding to the poster who said Putin/Gaza cause the price of gas to go up,

That was me, you appear to be confused on that simple fact.....but go on.

which they had little influence on the oil prices.

Afterward, using the event analysis based on variational mode decomposition (VMD), from October 1, 2021, to August 25, 2022, as the event window, we found that the (Ukraine) war and its chain events caused the West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil prices to increase by $37.14, a 52.33% surge, and the Brent crude oil price to rise by $41.49, a 56.33% increase.

The impact of Russia–Ukraine war on crude oil prices: an EMC framework - Humanities and Social Sciences Communications

As the second-largest oil producer and natural gas exporter, Russia’s war with Ukraine has severely impacted the energy market. To what extent has the war influenced crude oil prices, and has it altered the long-term dynamics of oil prices? An objective analysis of the effects of the...

www.nature.com

 

[George50]

And still waiting for you to show us how an ex-President can sign the Omnibus Spending Bill and therefore is responsible for that deficit in FY2009. You know the one the Dems bragged about cutting him out and where they took the last Bush/Rep deficit of a paltry $161B,

$161B was FY2007, the last full year Bush deficit was FY2008 at $455B, not FY2007. Why did it go up so much ? The reason is that the Great Recession was starting. Everyone knows that revenue tanks in a recession and expenses go up!

with the lower tax rates, to their $1,400B in just two years and kept it over $1,000B for the next three.

The FY2009 deficit was $1,400B as the worst of the recession took hold. Bush was still president during the first part of FY2009. Blame Bush for the Great Recession if you want, but you certainly can’t blame Obama for it.

p.s. Presidents are responsible for legislation they actually sign. For example, Trump signed tax cut legislation, Biden had to live with it. Democrat presidents don’t have magic wands they can wave to undo previous Republican president’s tax cuts when they sign a spending bill. Here’s a look at Trump vs Biden’s actual legislation. Of course Trump is trying to do it again:

 

[Stinger]

Oh look, you still haven’t learned how a bill becomes law

Oh look you continue to dodge, what about a bill becoming law are you asserting I missed and be specific while you explain your assertion Bush could have and should have vetoed the FY2009 OSB and how that is written in how a bill becomes law. How many years have I been asking you now.

 

[NWRatCon]

Oh look you continue to dodge, what about a bill becoming law are you asserting I missed and be specific while you explain your assertion Bush could have and should have vetoed the FY2009 OSB and how that is written in how a bill becomes law. How many years have I been asking you now.

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

 

[Stinger]

$161B was FY2007, the last full year Bush deficit was FY2008 at $455B, not FY2007. Why did it go up so much ? The reason is that the Great Recession was starting. Everyone knows that revenue tanks in a recession and expenses go up!

[/QUOTE]

The last full year of a Bush/Rep Congress was FY2007 with that measly $161B deficit. The Democrats took control of the congress Jan. of 2007 and their first budget was FY2008, Presidents do not control the budget Congress does. Were it not for Bush threatened vetoes the deficit would have been HIGHER than the $400B that year, you are not seriously going to content that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi after finally winning back control of Congress rubber stamped Bush budget request are you. I can surely show you different as my friend Rahl knows full well.

The FY2009 deficit was $1,400B as the worst of the recession took hold. Bush was still president during the first part of FY2009. Blame Bush for the Great Recession if you want, but you certainly can’t blame Obama for it.

And the Dems purposely held back the FY2009 budget until a Democrat President took office who happened to be Senator Obama, who was part and parcel to the FY2008 as a full voting Senator, who then added his HUGE stimulus spending to the bill and signing it in March driving the deficit to that $1,400B just two years after the Reps had it to $161B heading to surplus. Facts are facts.

p.s. Presidents are responsible for legislation they actually sign. For example, Trump signed tax cut legislation, Biden had to live with it. Democrat presidents don’t have magic wands they can wave to undo previous Republican president’s tax cuts when they sign a spending bill. Here’s a look at Trump vs Biden’s actual legislation. Of course Trump is trying to do it again:

How about for legislation and budgets they don't sign as Rahl contends.

And no, you don't get to compare Trump spending including the pandemic emergency spending to Biden who inherited a strong economy going into a recovery without anything he had to do unless you want to go on record saying you opposed any additional money being spent on Operation Warpspeed or other pandemic spending.

 

[Stinger]

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

Nope directly addressing the post to which I responded and the actual results of when the Reps cut tax rates. Care to respond?

 

[rahl]

Oh look you continue to dodge, what about a bill becoming law are you asserting I missed and be specific while you explain your assertion Bush could have and should have vetoed the FY2009 OSB and how that is written in how a bill becomes law. How many years have I been asking you now.

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

 

[Gimmesometruth]

heading to surplus

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.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Biden who inherited a strong economy

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

 

[Gardener]

Taxing the productive to support those who produce nothing is not sustainable

All it does is increase the legions of those with no interest in contributing to society.

 

[rahl]

Nope directly addressing the post to which I responded and the actual results of when the Reps cut tax rates. Care to respond?

Higher deficits due to reduced revenue, we know.

 

[NWRatCon]

Nope directly addressing the post to which I responded and the actual results of when the Reps cut tax rates. Care to respond?

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.

 

[George50]

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:


The last full year of a Bush/Rep Congress was FY2007 with that measly $161B deficit. The Democrats took control of the congress Jan. of 2007 and their first budget was FY2008, Presidents do not control the budget Congress does. Were it not for Bush threatened vetoes the deficit would have been HIGHER than the $400B that year, you are not seriously going to content that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi after finally winning back control of Congress rubber stamped Bush budget request are you. I can surely show you different as my friend Rahl knows full well.

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.


And the Dems purposely held back the FY2009 budget until a Democrat President took office who happened to be Senator Obama, who was part and parcel to the FY2008 as a full voting Senator, who then added his HUGE stimulus spending to the bill and signing it in March driving the deficit to that $1,400B just two years after the Reps had it to $161B heading to surplus. Facts are facts.

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.

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 had tanked from 14,000 in 2007 to 7,000. It turned around a few weeks after Obama took office when people could see that disaster was going to be averted. Having lived through ithat scary time I certainly don’t blame Democrats for doing what was necessary to turn the economy around. Did they spend exactly the amount needed or did they spend more than that? No one will ever know. We do know that something had to be done and it worked.

Again, the deficit was due to the Great Recession.


How about for legislation and budgets they don't sign as Rahl contends.

And no, you don't get to compare Trump spending including the pandemic emergency spending to Biden who inherited a strong economy

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.

going into a recovery without anything he had to do unless you want to go on record saying you opposed any additional money being spent on Operation Warpspeed or other pandemic spending.

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.

 

[Grogu]

I wanted to vote, “No. But if we were running a budget surplus, my answer would be yes.” But there are two huge problems with this selection. First, I can’t trust Congress. They’ll just spend any surplus instead of paying down the deficit. Second, I’ve long since gotten tired of the Republicans constantly banging the drum about the national deficit when they are not in power, but when they are, it means nothing.

They can’t help themselves. Just add a few trillion to the deficit and act like it doesn’t exist. The whole tax cut shell game has run its course. Kick the can down the road and give billionaires more wealth. Trump is Wimpy. “I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.” Yeah, right.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

That is idiotic. There are two ways to increase deficits..... one is to raise expenditures, the other is to reduce revenue.... Of course, cutting expenditures and/or increasing revenue have the opposite effect, to reduce deficits (or increase surplus). Sorry, that is simply Accounting 101.

The debt isn't debt until the money is spent. Spending is the cause of debt.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

No. By “changes in receipts” you are actually referring to just shoveling more and more money to big donors. Why should we expect the bottom half of the country who are struggling just to get along to live on less just so that politicians can reward big donors with huge tax breaks?

In a House Rules Committee hearing on Feb. 24, Rep. Jim McGovern, the ranking Democrat on the committee, offered several amendments to cap the extension of tax cuts at various income levels — first for those making under $400,000 per year, then at $1 million, then at $100 million, then $1 billion per year. All were rejected along party lines. Again, it’s all about rewarding the big donors l

The $400,000 level would have cut the amount of “changes in receipts” by about half or 2 trillion dollars. I know that he can’t afford a suit or a baby sitter when he is in the Oval Office but how much more money do you think Elon Musk needs?

All of this is just why you think tax cuts are bad. It has nothing to do with refuting the obvious: spending more then you take in is what causes debt.

 

[MAGAnificent]

According to the polls, 60% of Americans support cutting taxes, even if it means higher deficit. 74% of Republicans support this. 55% of Democrats oppose cutting taxes, even if it means higher deficit. Back in 1996, only 23% of Americans supported lowering taxes, if it means higher debt.

You can watch Harry Enten's analysis below:



How about you? Do you support deficit inducing tax cuts?

Deficit raising tax cuts is a long running myth. The tax cuts actually increase tax revenue.

 

[MAGAnificent]

I think the difference now is this: More people now realize that cutting taxes won't necessarily increase deficits. More people now understand that it is spending that increases the deficit. More people now understand that cutting taxes unleashes the economy and results in economic growth and increased revenue.

Well stated. The left makes the mistake of looking at tax revenue as a zero-sum game as if the amount of earnings and jobs remains static. They think more tax revenue is a simple matter of increasing taxes. They don't think of the negative consequences of raising taxes, which leads to more use of tax shelters and less employment opportunities.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

All of this is just why you think tax cuts are bad. It has nothing to do with refuting the obvious: spending more then you take in is what causes debt.

Donny is killing the IRS, is that a problem?

 

[BrotherFease]

Deficit raising tax cuts is a long running myth. The tax cuts actually increase tax revenue.

In the long term yes, but that's not the point of the thread.

Revenue going up, does not equal deficit or debt going down.

 

[MAGAnificent]

One effect of tax cuts is a loss in revenue and that's what pays for public services.

Actually, it's tax increases that cause a loss in tax revenue. They result in less investment, less business expansion, less hiring, more layoffs, hence less taxes actually being paid.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Revenue going up, does not equal deficit or debt going down.

True. The problem is that congress critters still manage to spend roughly $1.50 for every new dollar earned. My point is that tax cuts do not cause deficits as the op is suggesting. Deficit spending does.

 

[Mika-El]

Asking someone if they want tax cuts is like asking someone who is thirsty whether they need a drink and so your question begs the answer. Note the person who initiated this did not ask- "If taxes are cut what services from government are you willing to do without..." and then list medicaid, social welfare benefits, Fema, medical research grants, etc.

Magas. Geniuses.