Tax Cuts Will Spur Economic Growth!

[Reagan]

 

Kennedy did it.  Reagan did it. And Trump did it!

@CardinalBacker

[CardinalBacker]

You’re badly mistaken on this one. 
 

With debt service occupying 14% of our actual expenditures, we simply can’t afford fiscal policies that add to the debt.  We need to cut our spending, and Trump has been unwilling or unable to even mention it.  
 

I guess my point is this… if cutting taxes is always the answer, why don’t we just eliminate them altogether and forget about things like roads, education, national defense, Medicare and social security…. We’d all be so rich, though, right?

The inflation we’re experiencing now is a symptom of deficit spending brought on by Trump’s tax cuts immediately followed by the pandemic spending spree under Trump, then Biden.  
 

If you’ve ever built your own house, it’s heady… you just walk into the building supply and get what you need… you have to have it. $3k on electrical supplies? It’s a must-have. New saw-gotta have it. Then one day you close your construction loan and you have to do a complete 180- you can’t just walk into Lowe’s and drop a grand on something you want-you’re not operating on “building a house” money anymore-these are “real” dollars and you can’t just make a draw on your construction loan… you have to slam the brakes on the way you spend once the project is over. That’s what American politicians need to do. There’s too much talk about making investments when they really mean handing out cash. Tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts are just as bad for us as government handouts.  
 

And before you say “but those tax cuts generate more spending and economic growth… you know, “trickle-down”” I’d argue… what do you think people do with handouts? They spend them…. Which also spurs the economy, creates jobs, etc.  

When you finally realize that there’s no difference between “tax cuts” and promises of “income inequality.” It’s just politicians promising gifts from the public treasury in exchange for support. The only difference is that the cuts are justified as “letting you keep your money” to the working man vs “helping others” to the people who aren’t as fortunate. But it’s the same thing under the surface. 
 

There is no tax policy that will fix our exploding debt problem. Hiring a guy who a) has a history of being a “borrow big and file bankruptcy if it doesn’t work out” kind of successful is curious… especially if he already had the job once and his fiscal policies exploded our debt and helped caused the crippling inflation we’ve experienced. 
 

I’m a conservative. I don’t like high taxes. I like keeping the money I earn. The way we’re doing things can’t continue. Washington is wrong on both sides. 

[Big girl]

Clinton balanced the budget, I don't think that he cut taxes.

[UT alum]

43 minutes ago, Big girl said:

Clinton balanced the budget, I don't think that he cut taxes.

He didn’t. He raised them and the economy soared. Not because of them, but along with them.

[Reagan]

1 hour ago, Big girl said:

Clinton balanced the budget, I don't think that he cut taxes.

This didn’t happen until the Republicans won the House for the first time in 40 years.  Led by Newt Gingrich, Clinton was forced to play ball.  To his credit he did work with Gingrich to balance the budget.  You must remember that the previous 2 years he let Hillary try to socialize our medical system.  This failed.  But this was a major factor in the Republicans winning.  
 

@UT alum

[CardinalBacker]

18 minutes ago, UT alum said:

He didn’t. He raised them and the economy soared. Not because of them, but along with them.

It was two-fold. Congress forced  cuts to Clinton’s big plans (like his healthcare reform ideas). We haven’t had the give and take or financial reaponsibility in Washington since. 
 

Tax cuts are a bandaid on a stab wound in our current predicament. 
 

The idea that tax cuts will fix our debt problem is as stupid as thinking that the key to getting rich is with credit card rewards programs. “The more is spend, the more I get back!!!”

[LumRaiderFan]

Don’t forget Clinton saved money by gutting the military and choosing to never respond to terrorist attacks, which certainly saved money. 

Bush was forced to deal with his cowardice that culminated into 9-11.

Gingrich balanced the budget, not your hero Clinton.

[Big girl]

After proposing a plan to cut the deficit, Clinton submitted a budget and corresponding 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 (the final, signed version was known as the 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

) that would cut the deficit by $500 billion over five years by reducing $255 billion of spending and raising taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 It also imposed a new energy tax on all Americans and subjected about a quarter of those receiving Social Security payments to higher taxes on their benefits.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Republican Congressional leaders launched an aggressive opposition against the bill, claiming that the tax increase would only make matters worse. Republicans were united in this opposition, and every Republican in both houses of Congress voted against the proposal. 

[LumRaiderFan]

1 hour ago, Big girl said:

After proposing a plan to cut the deficit, Clinton submitted a budget and corresponding 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 (the final, signed version was known as the 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

) that would cut the deficit by $500 billion over five years by reducing $255 billion of spending and raising taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 It also imposed a new energy tax on all Americans and subjected about a quarter of those receiving Social Security payments to higher taxes on their benefits.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Republican Congressional leaders launched an aggressive opposition against the bill, claiming that the tax increase would only make matters worse. Republicans were united in this opposition, and every Republican in both houses of Congress voted against the proposal. 

Thank you for proving the point, Republicans forced welfare reform, Clinton gutted the military, including private sector defense companies, raised taxes on the wealthy and also enjoyed the boom in the tech industry.

Anyone that thinks this scenario proves that higher taxes boosts the economy is foolish.  Money left in the private sector is ALWAYS better that money confiscated by government.

[Big girl]

3 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Thank you for proving the point, Republicans forced welfare reform, Clinton gutted the military, including private sector defense companies, raised taxes on the wealthy and also enjoyed the boom in the tech industry.

Anyone that thinks this scenario proves that higher taxes boosts the economy is foolish.  Money left in the private sector is ALWAYS better that money confiscated by government.

He balanced the budget by increasing taxes., Newt had nothing to do with it. All Republicans voted against it.

[LumRaiderFan]

1 hour ago, Big girl said:

He balanced the budget by increasing taxes., Newt had nothing to do with it. All Republicans voted against it.

Sorry, wrong again, as usual.

[Big girl]

1 minute ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Sorry, wrong again, as usual.

You are in denial. Read what I posted. The bill was passed without Republican support.

[LumRaiderFan]

9 hours ago, Big girl said:

You are in denial. Read what I posted. The bill was passed without Republican support.

Go back and read what actually happened between Clinton and Gingrich, and look into what Clinton actually cut from the budget, and what was happening in the economy with the tech boom.  You actually have to look further than a headline in an article you googled to understand what happened.

 

[CardinalBacker]

16 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Thank you for proving the point, Republicans forced welfare reform, Clinton gutted the military, including private sector defense companies, raised taxes on the wealthy and also enjoyed the boom in the tech industry.

Anyone that thinks this scenario proves that higher taxes boosts the economy is foolish.  Money left in the private sector is ALWAYS better that money confiscated by government.

Okay… so the first step to keeping our  taxes is to eliminate HANDOUTS like social security and Medicare. 
 

Still believe “taxation is theft?”

[CardinalBacker]

Anybody who says “taxation is theft” is a welfare queen by another name. 
 

These people expect to have a good life in civilized country without doing anything to support it. I’m talking about both groups… the “no taxation” people AND the handout seekers.  They’re both deadbeats. 

[LumRaiderFan]

Just now, CardinalBacker said:

Okay… so the first step to keeping our  taxes is to eliminate HANDOUTS like social security and Medicare. 
 

Still believe “taxation is theft?”

I would love to have eliminated SS and Medicare, I can handle my own retirement.

But since I was forced to pay for them, you can bet I will take them when eligible.

By the way, it’s not a handout when you pay for what someone is giving you back.

Medicaid is a handout.

[LumRaiderFan]

1 minute ago, CardinalBacker said:

Anybody who says “taxation is theft” is a welfare queen by another name. 
 

These people expect to have a good life in civilized country without doing anything to support it. I’m talking about both groups… the “no taxation” people AND the handout seekers.  They’re both deadbeats. 

I don’t know anyone that says that, neither do you.

Taxes at the federal level should pay for only what is called for in the Constitution.

[CardinalBacker]

15 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

I don’t know anyone that says that, neither do you.

Taxes at the federal level should pay for only what is called for in the Constitution.

No… the argument is that “all taxation is theft.”

[LumRaiderFan]

13 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

No… the argument is that “all taxation is theft.”

No it’s not, and you know it.

[baddog]

“We contend that for a nation to try and tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”….Winston Churchill

[CardinalBacker]

34 minutes ago, baddog said:

“We contend that for a nation to try and tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”….Winston Churchill

A nation can’t borrow its way into prosperity, either. 
 

The problem is this… we have a debt now that is probably insurmountable. It must be paid back.  We’re not even trying, we’re just borrowing more-and nobody wants to have tough conversations because it will anger their voting base. You can’t cut taxes and create enough economic growth to pay back 36 trillion in debt… especially considering that we’re borrowing 1 out of every 3 federal dollars being spent annually. 
 

“Tax cuts! So you can keep your money!!” is a lie told for votes, period.  We can’t keep it up.  
 

Because…. We’re taking in 4 trillion or so in annual tax revenue in the US. But we’re spending 6.5 trillion (borrowing 2.5).  And the solution is “let’s take in less in taxes, and hopefully the government economy will grow enough to offset that loss of revenue, then some!” It hasn’t worked, doesn’t work, and never will work. For every Reagan, there has to be an HW Bush who has to be a grownup and bail us out of our childish mess created by tax cuts without spending cuts by raising taxes. 
 

 

[CardinalBacker]

I actually looked into Trump’s theory on deficit spending. It was enlightening, but faulty. 
 

Let’s say I buy a highrise for a billion. I lie about its value so I can borrow the entire billion. I pay a mortgage on the place, but it’s basically an interest-only mortgage. Meaning that I don’t tackle the principal at all… or even if I am paying on the principal, it doesn’t matter because that asset (the building) will appreciate in value. When I get ready to sell the thing, it’ll be worth more than the billion that I paid initially. My only cost to own the building was the interest paid on the loan… and it was offset by rents collected.  It makes sense.  
 

But he applied the same theory to the govts spending/borrowing. The only cost to borrow is the cost of the interest due on the loans… and the govt borrows at unbelievably cheap rates compared to what orgs like Trump has to pay in the open market.  Why wouldn’t we just borrow? 
 

Because we don’t own anything. There is no asset to sell, and the “rents” coming in (by way of taxes) won’t cover the amount of interest that’s being charged by foreign lenders.  
 

At some point we’ll have to start selling off federal assets to investors (probabky foreign) to pay on our debts, while our two parties bicker about who should be getting more generous gifts from the treasury… Party D or Party R. 

[LumRaiderFan]

29 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

I actually looked into Trump’s theory on deficit spending. It was enlightening, but faulty. 
 

Let’s say I buy a highrise for a billion. I lie about its value so I can borrow the entire billion. I pay a mortgage on the place, but it’s basically an interest-only mortgage. Meaning that I don’t tackle the principal at all… or even if I am paying on the principal, it doesn’t matter because that asset (the building) will appreciate in value. When I get ready to sell the thing, it’ll be worth more than the billion that I paid initially. My only cost to own the building was the interest paid on the loan… and it was offset by rents collected.  It makes sense.  
 

But he applied the same theory to the govts spending/borrowing. The only cost to borrow is the cost of the interest due on the loans… and the govt borrows at unbelievably cheap rates compared to what orgs like Trump has to pay in the open market.  Why wouldn’t we just borrow? 
 

Because we don’t own anything. There is no asset to sell, and the “rents” coming in (by way of taxes) won’t cover the amount of interest that’s being charged by foreign lenders.  
 

At some point we’ll have to start selling off federal assets to investors (probabky foreign) to pay on our debts, while our two parties bicker about who should be getting more generous gifts from the treasury… Party D or Party R. 

Amazing that we were so fiscally responsible for over 200 years until Trump came along, lol.

[UT alum]

21 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Amazing that we were so fiscally responsible for over 200 years until Trump came along, lol.

Yeah, like Harding, Coolidge, Hoover. Trump fits right in there.

[LumRaiderFan]

1 minute ago, UT alum said:

Yeah, like Harding, Coolidge, Hoover. Trump fits right in there.

lol