U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-15-2018, 05:27 AM
 
1,941 posts, read 1,199,266 times
Reputation: 670

Advertisements

But...But...But.......Hillary's E-Mails!!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-15-2018, 06:36 AM
 
6,783 posts, read 1,702,895 times
Reputation: 3957
Quote:
Originally Posted by carterstamp View Post
...So you like the deficit? OK, good to know.

I believe the tax cuts were a good idea but spending cuts should have happened also. Both parties are to blame for that not happening. However I will take the words of JFK and see if the current growing economy will push up tax revenue. How the left has strayed since then.


https://www.marketwatch.com/story/6-...icy-2013-11-22

Kennedy was one of the first presidents to articulate a supply-side theory. On Nov. 20, 1962, at a news conference, he said “It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”

Last edited by Oklazona Bound; 08-15-2018 at 06:50 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2018, 06:49 AM
 
2,963 posts, read 3,032,240 times
Reputation: 2869
Speaking of the increased deficit due to tax cuts - doesn't that simply show that our Congress is broken. I mean, they are broken for many reasons. But, they passed the Tax Cuts by way of Budget Reconciliation (51 votes needed instead of 60). But that's only supposed to apply if the deficit is expected to stay the same or shrink over the course of the legislation. The CBO reported that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act would increase the deficit. So... why were they allowed to pass it anyway? Shouldn't it have been thrown out immediately?

Reading up on how budget reconciliation works, a Senator could have (did they?) make a motion that the bill does not mean the deficit requirements of reconciliation and the parliamentarian or Senate President rules on that. It seemed clear that this bill did not pass muster. Unless the rules committee simply ignored the rules in order to get it pass anyway...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2018, 08:21 AM
 
2,367 posts, read 836,740 times
Reputation: 1650
Quote:
Originally Posted by dspguy View Post
Speaking of the increased deficit due to tax cuts - doesn't that simply show that our Congress is broken. I mean, they are broken for many reasons. But, they passed the Tax Cuts by way of Budget Reconciliation (51 votes needed instead of 60). But that's only supposed to apply if the deficit is expected to stay the same or shrink over the course of the legislation. The CBO reported that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act would increase the deficit. So... why were they allowed to pass it anyway? Shouldn't it have been thrown out immediately?

Reading up on how budget reconciliation works, a Senator could have (did they?) make a motion that the bill does not mean the deficit requirements of reconciliation and the parliamentarian or Senate President rules on that. It seemed clear that this bill did not pass muster. Unless the rules committee simply ignored the rules in order to get it pass anyway...
Here's how they got around the rules: Reconciliation cannot be used if the bill increases the deficit after 10 years. So they wrote it so that individual tax cuts expire in 2025. At that point, tax rates would snap back to previous levels.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2018, 09:13 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,519 posts, read 13,719,362 times
Reputation: 6889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oklazona Bound View Post
I believe the tax cuts were a good idea but spending cuts should have happened also. Both parties are to blame for that not happening. However I will take the words of JFK and see if the current growing economy will push up tax revenue. How the left has strayed since then.


https://www.marketwatch.com/story/6-...icy-2013-11-22

Kennedy was one of the first presidents to articulate a supply-side theory. On Nov. 20, 1962, at a news conference, he said “It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”


Well you left out a few things, when JFK made that statement the unemployment rate was 7.3%, the top marginal rate for individuals was 91%. economic growth was below 3% and corporate profits were lack luster. So no we didn't forget.


So explain to me why you think that tax cuts are in order with unemployment below 4%, record corporate profits and excellent economic growth, what was the problem these tax cuts addressed??
This is the same supply side nonsense proposed by Reagan, Stockman and Kudlow back in the 1980's that caused enormous deficits and required huge tax increases.


Yes spending cuts should precede tax cuts, but we know that will never happen, its easier to tell people they can have their cake and eat it. So why do you think that increasing the deficit in a hot economy is a good thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2018, 10:31 AM
 
Location: Texas
26,483 posts, read 11,074,588 times
Reputation: 6070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
Kudlow indicated the tax cuts would pay for themselves last year, haven’t heard him use that tidbit again
Who? And what credibility does he have?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
but he is proposing a capital gains tax cut this year.
Smart move. It worked for Clinton.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2018, 11:48 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,519 posts, read 13,719,362 times
Reputation: 6889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
Who? And what credibility does he have?

Smart move. It worked for Clinton.
Kid low never had any credibility back the and has less now but now he is Trump’s Evonomic director and he doesn’t even have a degree.

Clinton didn’t really want a capital gains cut but was forced into it as a compromise that he regretted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2018, 11:50 AM
 
17,752 posts, read 15,564,032 times
Reputation: 6390
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007 View Post
As many of us predicted, the budget deficit would continue to surge. And contrary to Trumpling claims about tax receipts going up in the wake of the tax cuts, they are actually DOWN compared to the same month last year.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/fe...uly-2018-08-10

Did you say your politics was on the left? Why do you have a Hoover economic platform?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2018, 11:53 AM
 
31,952 posts, read 16,424,515 times
Reputation: 17140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oklazona Bound View Post
I believe the tax cuts were a good idea but spending cuts should have happened also. Both parties are to blame for that not happening. However I will take the words of JFK and see if the current growing economy will push up tax revenue. How the left has strayed since then.


https://www.marketwatch.com/story/6-...icy-2013-11-22

Kennedy was one of the first presidents to articulate a supply-side theory. On Nov. 20, 1962, at a news conference, he said “It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”
Oh, FFS. The entire point of the Laffer Curve is that it's a curve. Pushing the tax rate to the left does not make the tax revenue approach infinity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2018, 12:45 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
8,832 posts, read 2,617,695 times
Reputation: 6754
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
Did you say your politics was on the left? Why do you have a Hoover economic platform?
I never said my politics were on the left. My politics are all over the place, frankly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top