Trump is the WWE and Mueller is The Undertaker

[BananaStand]

https://taxfoundation.org/does-lower...nment-revenue/

We can't possibly have the highest corporate taxes in the world AND still be on the left side of that curve

[Poopadoop]

We can't possibly have the highest corporate taxes in the world AND still be on the left side of that curve

The curve doesn't say what t* (the optimal tax rate) is; that's unknown. All the curve shows is that your argument that tax cuts = more revenue is an oversimplification.

If you read the article, it also shows the Bush tax cuts pushed the revenues down. So it seemed at that time at least, tax rates were probably on the left side of the curve.

[BananaStand]

The curve doesn't say what t* (the optimal tax rate) is; that's unknown. All the curve shows is that your argument that tax cuts = more revenue is an oversimplification.

If you read the article, it also shows the Bush tax cuts pushed the revenues down. So it seemed at that time at least, tax rates were probably on the left side of the curve.

It also says that was a misleading result regarding the bush cuts because of the depression in 2002 (thanks Clinton). Reagan went through the same thing. His approval ratings in 1982 were dog shit. Then the tax cuts started working.....just like the bush tax cuts started working.

It seems there's a 10-18 month delay in the passing of tax cuts, and the generation of tax revenue. Tax cuts still work though.

[Jack Sawyer]

Tax cuts still work though.

Citation needed

[BananaStand]

Citation needed

[Poopadoop]

Ya, no shit. People have more money to spend because the government is taxing them less, so GDP rises.

There still has to be some balance in the equation; you can't just lower all taxes to zero, spend the same amount, have a GDP of 15% and claim it's a great economy.

[BananaStand]

you can't just lower all taxes to zero, spend the same amount, have a GDP of 15% and claim it's a great economy.

Why not?

[Jack Sawyer]

The economy is "great"


https://www.vox.com/2018/8/2/1763976...mp-republicans

https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/10/inv...uts/index.html

http://time.com/money/5267940/compan...tock-buybacks/

Btw, please do not hotlink from other sites. When the image goes down, or they complain about bandwidth, the quote will be just a blank space to future FTR readers trying to follow your, ahem, musings.

Use an image hoster such as imgur instead.

Moving on,

GDP is a creature of the industrial era of mass-produced, homogenous goods. It is a far less useful guide to affluent economies where the quality of services is prized over simply having more stuff. It is badly attuned to digital economies, where activities that were once paid for, such as contacting friends or finding information, no longer attract a charge. GDP is thus increasingly failing to fully capture gains in average living standards. It is tricky to compare the life of a medieval king to that of a modern-day worker. But it is almost as difficult to put a number on how much better is a consumer basket that includes smartphones and music streaming to one filled with fax machines and audio-cassettes.

https://www.economist.com/the-econom...re-of-progress

[Poopadoop]

The economy is "great"


https://www.vox.com/2018/8/2/1763976...mp-republicans

https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/10/inv...uts/index.html

http://time.com/money/5267940/compan...tock-buybacks/

scooby.jpg

[Poopadoop]

It also says that was a misleading result regarding the bush cuts because of the depression in 2002

It's equally consistent with the tax cuts causing the recession. It doesn't say it did or didn't one way or another, but you don't get to pick and choose what causes what and who gets the credit based on what you want to believe.

(thanks Clinton).

By this logic the current economy is all thanks to Obama.

His approval ratings in 1982 were dog shit. Then the tax cuts started working.....just like the bush tax cuts started working.

Both Reagan and Bush ran serial deficits. How is that evidence of tax cuts generating more revenue?

http://www.stsw.com/2014/10/us-feder...ns-to-pre.html

It seems there's a 10-18 month delay in the passing of tax cuts, and the generation of tax revenue. Tax cuts still work though.

If by 'work' you mean 'don't work, this is just republican propaganda used to convince you that rich people should pay less taxes', then I agree.

https://www.decodedscience.org/parad...d-states/42918

[BananaStand]

By this logic the current economy is all thanks to Obama.

Sure, you can think of it that way. Like, if Obama was trying to grow tomatoes, and after 8 years, all he had was a decrepit, pathetic little weed that sprouts some tiny red fruit once in a while. Then Trump comes along, feeds it, waters it, gives it the respect it deserves. Then it triples in size and produces a massive bounty of tomatoes.

In that scenario, you could say Obama did such a poor job, that Trump benefited from inheriting such an easy challenge. If Obama had done anything right, the plant would already be very healthy, and Trump wouldn't be able to affect it as much.

Both Reagan and Bush ran serial deficits. How is that evidence of tax cuts generating more revenue?

Spending and revenue are separate things. Your question makes no sense.

[Poopadoop]

Sure, you can think of it that way. Like, if Obama was trying to grow tomatoes, and after 8 years, all he had was a decrepit, pathetic little weed that sprouts some tiny red fruit once in a while. Then Trump comes along, feeds it, waters it, gives it the respect it deserves. Then it triples in size and produces a massive bounty of tomatoes.

In that scenario, you could say Obama did such a poor job, that Trump benefited from inheriting such an easy challenge. If Obama had done anything right, the plant would already be very healthy, and Trump wouldn't be able to affect it as much.

lol, still seeing curves where the lines are straight I see.

How's that arithmetic GDP growth going? Is it up to 50% yet? You should try comparing Trump to Lincoln; his GDP growth is astronomically better in dollar terms.

Spending and revenue are separate things. Your question makes no sense.

Look again, and explain to me where these big jumps in revenue were in '83-84 and '03-04, and how they were associated with tax cuts. And then explain how the concommitant economic growth couldn't better be explained as borrowing money to stimulate the economy, a la Trump.

http://www.stsw.com/2014/10/us-feder...ns-to-pre.html

[BananaStand]

explain how the concommitant economic growth couldn't better be explained as borrowing money to stimulate the economy, a la Trump

The DOW went full blown pryopism before Trump was even inaugurated, let alone before he could borrow anything.

[BananaStand]

@Jack. If you want to post a clip of something that happened on CNN, post it. I'm not watching Kyle Kulinski's retarded narrative analysis. I'll use my own eyes and ears thank you very much.

Step outside of your bubble for a second and hear. There is no left wing in the ol' US of A. There is right and there is slightly less right. There is no left. There is now a progressive movement coming up, but see how fast the supposed left quashes those bugs.

What??? Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren have very high odds to be the Dem nominee in 2020.

If you think that the Dems aren't embracing socialist concepts like heavy redistribution, high government regulation, massive social welfare programs, and weak borders, then I want some of what you're smoking.

[Poopadoop]

Just like now: Trump gave the economy a huge tax cut stimulus it didn't need, saw marginal gains in an already strong economy, a big rise in the deficit, and claims victory.

[Jack Sawyer]

Next you will be telling me Corey Booker is also an actual leftist

[BananaStand]

Next you will be telling me Corey Booker is also an actual leftist

Good bye

[Jack Sawyer]

@Jack. If you want to post a clip of something that happened on CNN, post it. I'm not watching Kyle Kulinski's retarded narrative analysis. I'll use my own eyes and ears thank you very much.

You could have just watched the CNN part, and then brush off Kulinsky's comments, as every single one of those clips include the CNN part in full

What??? Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren have very high odds to be the Dem nominee in 2020.

If you think that the Dems aren't embracing socialist concepts like heavy redistribution, high government regulation, massive social welfare programs, and weak borders, then I want some of what you're smoking.

LOL at this shit

[BananaStand]

LOL at this shit

Either we're talking, or you're here to be a mocking dickhead. Pick one.

[Jack Sawyer]

Either we're talking, or you're here to be a mocking dickhead. Pick one.

Aren't you mocking "Kulinsky's retarded narrative analysis" while dismissing the entirety of the clips you asked for?

And then you somehow call other people dickheads>

LOL

Oh, and Kamala Harris as "left candidate". You made my day with that one

[BananaStand]

Oh, and Kamala Harris as "left candidate". You made my day with that one

More dickeheadery? Do you want to comment specifically on any of Harris's policies and explain why they are non-left?

[Jack Sawyer]

@Jack. If you want to post a clip of something that happened on CNN, post it. I'm not watching Kyle Kulinski's retarded narrative analysis. I'll use my own eyes and ears thank you very much.

Kulinsky's retarted analysis is BTW exactly on point pretty much every single time

[BananaStand]

Kulinsky's retarted analysis is BTW exactly on point pretty much every single time

Really? Is that why his studio looks like his mom's basement?

[Jack Sawyer]

Really? Is that why his studio looks like his mom's basement?

Sip the haterade, don't chug it