It's Time To Kill The Absurd Notion Cutting Taxes For The Rich Grows The Economy

Nov 2012
40,702
11,731
Lebanon, TN
Cutting taxes for the Rich

Worked for Harding it gave us an economy so great it is STILL called the Roaring 20s
Worked for Truman it was the Post war economic Boom
It worked for Kennedy
It worked for Reagan the longest peacetime prosperity
It worked for Clinton cutting Capital Gains rates by 45% gave us the Clinton Economy
It has worked for Trump.

(Bush Cut taxes for the lower incomes). it failed
Nixon Raised Taxes gave us Stagflation
Carter Raised taxes gave us the Great Malaise
Bush 41 increased Taxes Gave us the Recession of 1990s
 
Dec 2018
1,451
818
Unionville Indiana
Cutting taxes for the Rich

Worked for Harding it gave us an economy so great it is STILL called the Roaring 20s
Worked for Truman it was the Post war economic Boom
It worked for Kennedy
It worked for Reagan the longest peacetime prosperity
It worked for Clinton cutting Capital Gains rates by 45% gave us the Clinton Economy
It has worked for Trump.

(Bush Cut taxes for the lower incomes). it failed
Nixon Raised Taxes gave us Stagflation
Carter Raised taxes gave us the Great Malaise
Bush 41 increased Taxes Gave us the Recession of 1990s
Bull shit. Historical Highest Marginal Income Tax Rates

This country had about the best economy ever in the 1950s and early 1960s with top marginal tax rates at 91%.
 
Last edited:
Nov 2012
40,702
11,731
Lebanon, TN
It would be fascinating to talk to you without those partisan blinders on...
NONE of what you just talked about is relevant to the points being made...

Again, this topic is about "Cutting Taxes for the Rich DOES NOT grow the economy".
Reagan's presidency is not a good example of supposedly growing the economy by cutting taxes as he simultaneously cut taxes and increased deficit spending.
It wasn't the rich tax cuts, but the deficit spending which had the effect on the economy.

 
Nov 2012
40,702
11,731
Lebanon, TN
It would be fascinating to talk to you without those partisan blinders on...
NONE of what you just talked about is relevant to the points being made...

Again, this topic is about "Cutting Taxes for the Rich DOES NOT grow the economy".
Reagan's presidency is not a good example of supposedly growing the economy by cutting taxes as he simultaneously cut taxes and increased deficit spending.
It wasn't the rich tax cuts, but the deficit spending which had the effect on the economy.


Once again the most ignorant statement in the history of Forum posts

PRESIDENTS DO NOT CREATE DEBT


READ THE DARN CONSTITUTION... ARTICLE 1 SECTION 8 CLAUSE 2

(Powers vested to CONGRESS, not the Executive Branch)

TO BORROW ON THE CREDIT OF THE UNITED STATES.

Whosoever was your Civics teacher.... GET YOUR DARN MONEY BACK,,,, HE TAUGHT YOU SHIT

Now if you look at the Congressional Control


Democrats borrowed 14.2 Trillion dollars of the national debt (Created the 4 highest annual deficits in history of the nation ) that is ~66% of the total debt created by DEMOCRATS

GOP Congressed only created 4.1 Trillion dollars of the national debt THAT IS ~20%

THE OTHER 16% OF THE NATIONAL DEBT WAS CREATED WHEN CONGRESS WAS DIVIDED,


U.S. Federal Deficits, Presidents, and Congress
 
Likes: walkaway
Nov 2005
8,595
3,036
California
Once again the most ignorant statement in the history of Forum posts
We keep talking about this and you keep walking away from the discussion when your talking points are exposed...

Everybody knows what the constitution says.
But it's about WHO INFLUENCES the spending with the largest impact. Like if a husband had a checkbook, but he only wrote checks for what the wife told him to write checks for. It would be illogical to ignore the fact that the wife is the primary influencer on the finances even though she technically doesn't hold the checkbook.

The party of the president has the biggest influence as to whether or not the deficit will grow or shrink.
Repub president => Deficit GROWS.
Dem president => Deficit SHRINKS.

Repub president with Repub congress => Deficit GROWS.
Repub president with Dem congress => Deficit GROWS.

Dem president with Repub congress => Deficit SHRINKS.
Dem president with Dem congress => Deficit SHRINKS.

The data backs this up.


I know that Civics classes are being Replaced by the Timmy has 2 daddies,,,,,, But stupid is stupid... and you almost cannot Fix LW Stupid.
"LW stupid".
When a Dem is in office (like Obama), the Repubs scream and yell that he's growing the deficit even though he is not.
But you want to claim it's "LW stupid". :rolleyes:

And if you want to talk about ULTIMATE stupidity...
White House suggests Obama's to blame for Trump's budget mess
But of course, you won't criticize Trump for that idiocy either, will you... :rolleyes:
 
May 2019
400
89
USA
We keep talking about this and you keep walking away from the discussion when your talking points are exposed...

Everybody knows what the constitution says.
But it's about WHO INFLUENCES the spending with the largest impact. Like if a husband had a checkbook, but he only wrote checks for what the wife told him to write checks for. It would be illogical to ignore the fact that the wife is the primary influencer on the finances even though she technically doesn't hold the checkbook.

The party of the president has the biggest influence as to whether or not the deficit will grow or shrink.
Repub president => Deficit GROWS.
Dem president => Deficit SHRINKS.

Repub president with Repub congress => Deficit GROWS.
Repub president with Dem congress => Deficit GROWS.

Dem president with Repub congress => Deficit SHRINKS.
Dem president with Dem congress => Deficit SHRINKS.

The data backs this up.



"LW stupid".
When a Dem is in office (like Obama), the Repubs scream and yell that he's growing the deficit even though he is not.
But you want to claim it's "LW stupid". :rolleyes:

And if you want to talk about ULTIMATE stupidity...
White House suggests Obama's to blame for Trump's budget mess
But of course, you won't criticize Trump for that idiocy either, will you... :rolleyes:
The party of the president
has the biggest influence as to whether or not the deficit will grow or shrink
You are absolutely wrong and the data that I and TNVolunteer fellow produced indicate that. Congress has the power of the law and the legislative powers for debt, in other words budgeting. The data does not in any shape fashion or form back up the notion that a Democratic Congress with a Democratic President has lower deficits. Its simply not true looking at the data. With the exception of Donald Trump as President and his short lived Republican controlled Congress. That is an exception.
 
Nov 2005
8,595
3,036
California
You are absolutely wrong and the data that I and TNVolunteer fellow produced indicate that.
No. It doesn't.
Other than you two CLAIMING that, you have presented no COMPREHENSIVE data on the subject to show that.

You have tried to cherry-pick certain data to claim evidence, but I showed how your summation was egregiously flawed.


Congress has the power of the law and the legislative powers for debt, in other words budgeting. The data does not in any shape fashion or form back up the notion that a Democratic Congress with a Democratic President has lower deficits.
Yeah. It does!
First of all, the graph:
505e4ef0d08d964058ae117227371efaeb8.jpg
Secondly, as part of me disproving you in that post which I just linked to...
Clinton with a Democrats controlled the Congress.
1991-92 - $205 billion - This is what Clinton started with.
1992-93 - $164 billion
1993-94 - $101 billion
ONLY DEMOCRAT controlled congress during this period and the deficit was cut in OVER HALF.

Moreover, whereas the looking at the Dem controlled Congress under Clinton saw the deficit drop over $100 billion in two consecutive Congressional periods (cut in half), the next $100 billion drop took FIVE Congressional periods after the Dems lost control over congress (and Repubs seized control).


Its simply not true looking at the data. With the exception of Donald Trump as President and his short lived Republican controlled Congress. That is an exception.
Your lying is egregious. Starting with Reagan:
Republican president => DEFICIT GROWS
Democrat president => DEFICIT SHRINKS

Who is in charge of Congress is irrelevant.
You keep saying "looking at the data", but you cannot quote the data because the data disproves you.
I am quoting the data to disprove you.
 
Likes: RNG
Nov 2012
40,702
11,731
Lebanon, TN
We keep talking about this and you keep walking away from the discussion when your talking points are exposed...

Everybody knows what the constitution says.
But it's about WHO INFLUENCES the spending with the largest impact. Like if a husband had a checkbook, but he only wrote checks for what the wife told him to write checks for. It would be illogical to ignore the fact that the wife is the primary influencer on the finances even though she technically doesn't hold the checkbook.

The party of the president has the biggest influence as to whether or not the deficit will grow or shrink.
Repub president => Deficit GROWS.
Dem president => Deficit SHRINKS.

Repub president with Repub congress => Deficit GROWS.
Repub president with Dem congress => Deficit GROWS.

Dem president with Repub congress => Deficit SHRINKS.
Dem president with Dem congress => Deficit SHRINKS.

The data backs this up.



"LW stupid".
When a Dem is in office (like Obama), the Repubs scream and yell that he's growing the deficit even though he is not.
But you want to claim it's "LW stupid". :rolleyes:

And if you want to talk about ULTIMATE stupidity...
White House suggests Obama's to blame for Trump's budget mess
But of course, you won't criticize Trump for that idiocy either, will you... :rolleyes:

I don't walk away from the Discussion... There is nothing to walk away from, I am totally right on this.. and the fact is the END of the discussion.

ONLY CONGRESS CAN BORROW MONEY.

So when you Post something like REAGAN'S DEFICT, OBAMA'S DEFICIT, CLINTON SURPLUS..

it is a STATEMENT MADE OUT OF IGNORANCE. period.


Presidents are like my Teenage Daughter... the House and Senate are like me Her Father, and Her Mother...

My Teenage Daughter says... I want to go to Lucky Brand and buy me a 150 dollar pair of Jeans..

Well the Congress (Parents in this example) both houses, Come together and say... NOPE... sorry, here is $30 go to Walmart or Goodwill and buy a pair of jeans... We are not going to borrow money for that. (We do not raise the debt Ceiling)
 
Last edited:
Nov 2012
40,702
11,731
Lebanon, TN
Bull shit. Historical Highest Marginal Income Tax Rates

This country had about the best economy ever in the 1950s and early 1960s with top marginal tax rates at 91%.

Yes, l and there was NO COMPETITION, the rest of the industrial world was blown to hell in a World War.. WE WERE THE ONLY MAN STANDING...

by the 1960, Europe, and Asia rebuilt.... it is easy to charge what you want when you have a monopoly on the world economy.

FYI, Kennedy cut the top marginal rate from 91% to 70%. BECAUSE HIGH TAXES WERE CAUSING A RECESSION...

in Kennedy's own words... he did NOT CUT the Middle and Lower tax brackets.

 
Last edited: