Tax Cuts Will Spur Economic Growth!

[LumRaiderFan]

15 minutes ago, UT alum said:

Got scripture to back that up?

𝐏𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐦 𝟏𝟑𝟗:𝟏𝟑-𝟏𝟔

𝐉𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐚𝐡 𝟏:𝟒-𝟓

The biggest would be "Thou shall not kill"  which is more closely translated as Thou shall not murder, or take an innocent life.

That God/Jesus placed high value on life, born and unborn, is a no brainer.

[Big girl]

3 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

It already has, your school got paid for.

Bs. I paid 3 x more than I owed.

[baddog]

54 minutes ago, UT alum said:

I wasn’t using the Bible to prop up anything. If you don’t find the contradiction ironic, counter it. You can’t. You’re a stone thrower. I try to live by the new commandments that came with fulfillment of the law. 

It was really meant for Big Girl, but as the saying goes….”If the shoe fits…wear it”. Here’s the deal……if we enter Christian values into the equation, 90% of the liberal beliefs would be null and void. Everything about democrats is anti-something. Democrats boo God. This country and it’s values have carried it for centuries as being the best place to live in the world. Why would anyone try to “anti” anything. Sure there are flaws, but to attempt an about face is totally ridiculous.

[Big girl]

3 hours ago, Reagan said:

You must have me confused with some one who wants hand outs.  I'm for cutting taxes and cutting spending.  There's so much waste in the government that is unreal.  BTW, Reagan cut taxes and nearly doubled the amount coming into the Treasury.  They saw all this money coming in and had their usual spending spree.  Put the point is:  the amount of money that came into the Treasury.  That's a fact!  But, true, we need to get spending under control.. i have heard that when Trump wins, he'll as Elon Musk to be in charge of government efficiency.  He cut 80% of Twitter and is running just fine.  

When Reagan was President, we went from the primary lender to the primary borrower. 

[Reagan]

2 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Musk destroyed Twitter, losing billions of his own dollars and the fortunes of his poor investors.  It's not the success story you think it is.  

Didn't want to touch this one did you:  " BTW, Reagan cut taxes and nearly doubled the amount coming into the Treasury."  Kinda shoots your theory concerning tax cuts.  Tax increases will eventually have an adverse affect.  Ever heard of the "Laffer Curve?"  If you haven't, check it out.  Man worked for Reagan.  His name is Arthur Laffer.  

@Big girl  @UT alum

[Reagan]

1 minute ago, Big girl said:

When Reagan was President, we went from the primary lender to the primary borrower. Also, didn't he take money out of  the social security fund?

No, I believe Johnson was the first to raid it to mask the cost of the Viet Nam war.  If I'm not mistaken, what Reagan did was try to save Social Security.  Or extend it's life anyway.  

[Big girl]

4 minutes ago, Reagan said:

Didn't want to touch this one did you:  " BTW, Reagan cut taxes and nearly doubled the amount coming into the Treasury."  Kinda shoots your theory concerning tax cuts.  Tax increases will eventually have an adverse affect.  Ever heard of the "Laffer Curve?"  If you haven't, check it out.  Man worked for Reagan.  His name is Arthur Laffer.  

@Big girl  @UT alum

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[Reagan]

3 minutes ago, Big girl said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

As per one of the headings:  "So the spending cuts never materialized."  The House was controlled by the Dems.  As I said, and not debatable, Reagan's tax cuts almost double money to the Treasury.   The Dems, led by that goof ball, Tip O'Neill, saw all that money and continued spending like a drunken sailor.  But, the point, Big Girl, is that tax cuts work!  We HAVE to control spending.  The old saying, which do you believe:  We spend too much or we are taxed to little?  

[LumRaiderFan]

25 minutes ago, Reagan said:

As per one of the headings:  "So the spending cuts never materialized."  The House was controlled by the Dems.  As I said, and not debatable, Reagan's tax cuts almost double money to the Treasury.   The Dems, led by that goof ball, Tip O'Neill, saw all that money and continued spending like a drunken sailor.  But, the point, Big Girl, is that tax cuts work!  We HAVE to control spending.  The old saying, which do you believe:  We spend too much or we are taxed to little?  

100% correct, his tax cuts brought in revenue through the roof, but the promised spending cuts never happened.

Not sure why it’s so hard to understand that money in the private sector is much more productive than money confiscated by the government.

[UT alum]

44 minutes ago, Reagan said:

Didn't want to touch this one did you:  " BTW, Reagan cut taxes and nearly doubled the amount coming into the Treasury."  Kinda shoots your theory concerning tax cuts.  Tax increases will eventually have an adverse affect.  Ever heard of the "Laffer Curve?"  If you haven't, check it out.  Man worked for Reagan.  His name is Arthur Laffer.  

@Big girl  @UT alum

He was one of the trickle down dudes, right? Laffable. I believe he was one of the tricklers, not the trickled. Reagan may have filled the coffers, but he emptied them faster. Piled up biggest debt in history to that time. So, who’s to say that increased government spending wasn’t one of the drivers of the growth achieved during his two terms? 

[CardinalBacker]

6 hours ago, Reagan said:

As per one of the headings:  "So the spending cuts never materialized."  The House was controlled by the Dems.  As I said, and not debatable, Reagan's tax cuts almost double money to the Treasury.   The Dems, led by that goof ball, Tip O'Neill, saw all that money and continued spending like a drunken sailor.  But, the point, Big Girl, is that tax cuts work!  We HAVE to control spending.  The old saying, which do you believe:  We spend too much or we are taxed to little?  

Tax revenues did NOT double. That is patently untrue.

 

Can tou point me to a source? What window of time are you looking at?

[CardinalBacker]

For reference… the total tax revenues for 1981 (Reagan’s first year) were 599.3b. In 1988 they were 909.2b. That’s an increase of 52% over eight years… which is a very impressive increase in revenues, but not “doubled” as you stated. 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

BUT the increase in revenues was largely caused by INFLATION, which was at 10% + for the first three years of Reagan’s presidency.  
 

By contrast, the national debt at the end of ‘81 was  $998b…. But the national debt was 2.857 TRILLION by the end of 1988. That’s a 287% increase in the national debt.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

That, my friend, is a set of facts, not opinions, that are accurate and undisputed.  
 

So if revenues were up by 51% and the debt jumped by 287%, it’s safe to say that “trickle down economics” didn’t work worth a darn, in my opinion. 

[Reagan]

1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

Tax revenues did NOT double. That is patently untrue.

 

Can tou point me to a source? What window of time are you looking at?

I didn't say it doubled I said they nearly doubled.  I am remembering as it happened.  I wasn't looking and find this info.  But here is some of it. 

From the article:  "The Reagan tax cuts were implemented in three installments, with the top marginal rate falling to 50% from 70%. When the reductions were fully in effect in 1983, the economy snapped out of the recession, and real growth averaged 4.6% for the remainder of the Reagan presidency—more than his much-maligned “rosy scenario” ever promised.

 Economic growth faded as President Obama raised taxes and smothered the economy with unprecedented regulatory burdens.

Without looking any further right now, I'd say the time frame I'm talking about would be sometime between 1983 and 1988.  Plus you can see here what Yobama raising taxes did to smother the economy.  

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[Reagan]

1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

For reference… the total tax revenues for 1981 (Reagan’s first year) were 599.3b. In 1988 they were 909.2b. That’s an increase of 52% over eight years… which is a very impressive increase in revenues, but not “doubled” as you stated. 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

BUT the increase in revenues was largely caused by INFLATION, which was at 10% + for the first three years of Reagan’s presidency.  
 

By contrast, the national debt at the end of ‘81 was  $998b…. But the national debt was 2.857 TRILLION by the end of 1988. That’s a 287% increase in the national debt.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

That, my friend, is a set of facts, not opinions, that are accurate and undisputed.  
 

So if revenues were up by 51% and the debt jumped by 287%, it’s safe to say that “trickle down economics” didn’t work worth a darn, in my opinion. 

FY1988	$909.2 billion
FY 1987	$854.3 billion
FY 1986	$769.2 billion
FY 1985	$734.0 billion
FY 1984	$666.4 billion
FY 1983	$600.6 billion
FY 1982	$617.8 billion
FY 1981	$599.3 billion
FY 1980	$517.1 billion

 

Like I said, revenue nearly doubled with, after 1983, a consistent 4.6% economic growth.  Revenue coming, low inflation plus excellent growth rate tells you how well the economy is doing.  With massive spending increases and tax increases, Yobama's growth never got above, I think, 2%!  Yes, facts are important.

[CardinalBacker]

8 hours ago, Reagan said:

FY1988	$909.2 billion
FY 1987	$854.3 billion
FY 1986	$769.2 billion
FY 1985	$734.0 billion
FY 1984	$666.4 billion
FY 1983	$600.6 billion
FY 1982	$617.8 billion
FY 1981	$599.3 billion
FY 1980	$517.1 billion

 

Like I said, revenue nearly doubled with, after 1983, a consistent 4.6% economic growth.  Revenue coming, low inflation plus excellent growth rate tells you how well the economy is doing.  With massive spending increases and tax increases, Yobama's growth never got above, I think, 2%!  Yes, facts are important.

52% isn’t “nearly doubled.”  And even when adjusted for inflation, the growth numbers in revenue are impressive. 
 

BUT when you compare the modest growth in revenues to the explosion (nearly tripling) of debt in the same timeframe proves that tax cuts are not the be-all, end-all economic policy that people believe they are. 
 

Personally I love lower taxes… who believes that the government deserves large chunks of our income.  The problem is that we demand a myriad of government services and programs that come at a hefty price. And it’s been going on for so long that we’ve got serious belt-tightening to do… this isn’t the time to take out another payday loan in the form of tax cuts just so we can have a nice weekend when we’re facing bankruptcy.  

[CardinalBacker]

8 hours ago, Reagan said:

FY1988	$909.2 billion
FY 1987	$854.3 billion
FY 1986	$769.2 billion
FY 1985	$734.0 billion
FY 1984	$666.4 billion
FY 1983	$600.6 billion
FY 1982	$617.8 billion
FY 1981	$599.3 billion
FY 1980	$517.1 billion

 

Like I said, revenue nearly doubled with, after 1983, a consistent 4.6% economic growth.  Revenue coming, low inflation plus excellent growth rate tells you how well the economy is doing.  With massive spending increases and tax increases, Yobama's growth never got above, I think, 2%!  Yes, facts are important.

You’re on the right track, just headed the wrong way. Your namesake ran in 1980… was sworn in during January of 1981. His tax cuts has nothing to do with growth in revenues in 1980.  
there was a 20% growth in tax revenues in 1980… and 1980 was not a good year for the economy. Rampant inflation, higher interest rates, etc… but those challenges yielded an almost 20% increase in revenues (517b to 593b) in that single year… and there was nary a tax cut that year. 
 

If you look closer, the growth in revenues actually slowed, then revenues DECREASED in 1983 after tax cuts in 1981. Tax cuts without even more substantial spending cuts are poisonous. 
 

But I’m glad to see you’re thinking. 

[5GallonBucket]

16 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

𝐏𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐦 𝟏𝟑𝟗:𝟏𝟑-𝟏𝟔

𝐉𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐚𝐡 𝟏:𝟒-𝟓

The biggest would be "Thou shall not kill"  which is more closely translated as Thou shall not murder, or take an innocent life.

That God/Jesus placed high value on life, born and unborn, is a no brainer.

𝐉𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐞𝐬 𝟏𝟑:𝟑-𝟓

𝐋𝐮𝐤𝐞 𝟏:𝟑𝟗-𝟒𝟓

psalm 127:3-4

 

[Big girl]

16 hours ago, Reagan said:

As per one of the headings:  "So the spending cuts never materialized."  The House was controlled by the Dems.  As I said, and not debatable, Reagan's tax cuts almost double money to the Treasury.   The Dems, led by that goof ball, Tip O'Neill, saw all that money and continued spending like a drunken sailor.  But, the point, Big Girl, is that tax cuts work!  We HAVE to control spending.  The old saying, which do you believe:  We spend too much or we are taxed to little?  

That didn't happen. The tax cuts didn't work, so he had to increase taxes twice.

[Big girl]

17 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

𝐏𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐦 𝟏𝟑𝟗:𝟏𝟑-𝟏𝟔

𝐉𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐚𝐡 𝟏:𝟒-𝟓

The biggest would be "Thou shall not kill"  which is more closely translated as Thou shall not murder, or take an innocent life.

That God/Jesus placed high value on life, born and unborn, is a no brainer.

I don't believe in abortion.

[BS Wildcats]

18 hours ago, Big girl said:

I don't believe in abortion.

But, you vigorously support and vote for those that do.  So, in essence, you do support it.

 

[Big girl]

4 hours ago, BS Wildcats said:

But, you vigorously support and vote for those that do.  So, in essence, you do support it.

 

Because I also believe in programs that help to sustain life. You don't, you are not pro life you are pro birth

[baddog]

46 minutes ago, Big girl said:

Because I also believe in programs that help to sustain life. You don't, you are not pro life you are pro birth

Pro life…..pro birth? There’s a difference you are trying to make here?

[BS Wildcats]

19 hours ago, Big girl said:

Because I also believe in programs that help to sustain life. You don't, you are not pro life you are pro birth

You believe in murder, I don’t!

[Big girl]

4 hours ago, BS Wildcats said:

You believe in murder, I don’t!

Nope, I don't. But I also believe in funding for programs that help to sustain life. You don"t.

[baddog]

7 minutes ago, Big girl said:

Nope, I don't. But I also believe in funding for programs that help to sustain life. You don"t.

You are right. We believe in the right for a fetus to live, but after birth, we want death for that same fetus. Do you realize how stupid that sounds? It is typical of the mentality of the left. It’s called brainwashed and lying.