It's clear you don't understand them. Want me to break it down to the 8th grade level so you can understand it like we do for doogie?
Or how about this. You refute the charts with information on how tax revenue grew after the tax cuts.
Hondo is mad
And dumb.
Govt revenues almost doubled under 8 years of Reagan. HondoFS...
And the economy more than doubled and debt about tripled. Missing context much?
WTF is your speed limit IQ talking about? I wish it almost doubled under Reagan, but it did go up a hell of a lot more than it did over the last 8 year...
No shit the govt has always had a spending problem. Somebody else has been telling you that for a couple of pages now and you were disagreeing with him, and now you suddenly figured that out? God you are an effin moron.
Your own chart shows in the grand scheme of things all of these tax increases and decreases really doesn't impact the amount taken in as taxes as a % of the GDP much at all...the variation is mainly a function of the economy (i.e. pretty much every dip occurs in a recession). The policies (tax and otherwise) does appear to impact the rate that GDP does grow (as shown by the last 8 years of shitty growth in what should have been an absolute boom after the "Great Recession" versus what even you pointed out as being Reagan's much greater growth of the overall economy).
Glad to see the new short buses have wifi installed so we can be graced by your stupidity. Carry on now...
It's been a rough weak for the left, especially with the travel bans lifted.
But Russia!!!!!
Oh yeah, that shit's fallin apart too.
T's and P's to libtard for a safe weekend that doesn't involve belts or sheets.
The budget congress approved authorizes another $1.5 trillion of deficit spending over the next 10 years. If congress approves. Debt/gdp is already over 100%. You are a yes?
A buck 5 over 10 years.
No problem if true considering the spending spree of the last 12 years.
Debt/*gnp is only a problem at around 120. At least that’s what all Obamapologists told me when He was the QB. And it will only lower as time goes on.
Drop in the bucket considering the friendly economic conditions present in the here and now.
And now that the Obamapologists are done using that weak fucking excuse, you're going to start using it?
Why am I not surprised?
What a fucking twat you are.
Breathe through your nose mutt.
Debt to gnp isn’t near 120 now and it’s not forecasted to sniff it anytime soon. It wasn’t an excuse. It was a commentary. The big bounce back from the Great Recession is afoot. While the ratio is forecast to remain steady for a few years, it has a better shot of lowering. Unless we go to war against China/Russia, there are no more $3 Trillion “wars” to be taken on. And if that were to happen, debt is the least of our concerns. The dirty work has been done. And it’s maintenance money now.
It's been a rough weak for the left, especially with the travel bans lifted.
But Russia!!!!!
Oh yeah, that shit's fallin apart too.
T's and P's to libtard for a safe weekend that doesn't involve belts or sheets.
The budget congress approved authorizes another $1.5 trillion of deficit spending over the next 10 years. If congress approves. Debt/gdp is already over 100%. You are a yes?
A buck 5 over 10 years.
No problem if true considering the spending spree of the last 12 years.
Debt/*gnp is only a problem at around 120. At least that’s what all Obamapologists told me when He was the QB. And it will only lower as time goes on.
Drop in the bucket considering the friendly economic conditions present in the here and now.
And now that the Obamapologists are done using that weak fucking excuse, you're going to start using it?
Why am I not surprised?
What a fucking twat you are.
Breathe through your nose mutt.
Debt to gnp isn’t near 120 now and it’s not forecasted to sniff it anytime soon. It wasn’t an excuse. It was a commentary. The big bounce back from the Great Recession is afoot. While the ratio is forecast to remain steady for a few years, it has a better shot of lowering. Unless we go to war against China/Russia, there are no more 3 TT “wars” to be taken on. And if that were to happen, debt is the least of our concerns. The dirty work has been done. And it’s maintenance money now.
It's clear you don't understand them. Want me to break it down to the 8th grade level so you can understand it like we do for doogie?
Or how about this. You refute the charts with information on how tax revenue grew after the tax cuts.
Hondo is mad
And dumb.
Govt revenues almost doubled under 8 years of Reagan. HondoFS...
And the economy more than doubled and debt about tripled. Missing context much?
WTF is your speed limit IQ talking about? I wish it almost doubled under Reagan, but it did go up a hell of a lot more than it did over the last 8 year...
No shit the govt has always had a spending problem. Somebody else has been telling you that for a couple of pages now and you were disagreeing with him, and now you suddenly figured that out? God you are an effin moron.
Your own chart shows in the grand scheme of things all of these tax increases and decreases really doesn't impact the amount taken in as taxes as a % of the GDP much at all...the variation is mainly a function of the economy (i.e. pretty much every dip occurs in a recession). The policies (tax and otherwise) does appear to impact the rate that GDP does grow (as shown by the last 8 years of shitty growth in what should have been an absolute boom after the "Great Recession" versus what even you pointed out as being Reagan's much greater growth of the overall economy).
Glad to see the new short buses have wifi installed so we can be graced by your stupidity. Carry on now...
First bold. I've been talking about spending. Dumbass.
Second bold. You are a complete fucking idiot if you think moving 3 to 4 precent of GDP isn't that big of a deal. If revenues went up 3% of GDP this year, we'd go from a $600 billion deficit to a surplus. But you are saying that variation doesn't have an impact?
Prolly in the garage fixing his 15 year old atv, while listening to New ATV ad’s on the football game in the background-while others are out riding theirs today.
It's clear you don't understand them. Want me to break it down to the 8th grade level so you can understand it like we do for doogie?
Or how about this. You refute the charts with information on how tax revenue grew after the tax cuts.
Hondo is mad
And dumb.
Govt revenues almost doubled under 8 years of Reagan. HondoFS...
And the economy more than doubled and debt about tripled. Missing context much?
WTF is your speed limit IQ talking about? I wish it almost doubled under Reagan, but it did go up a hell of a lot more than it did over the last 8 year...
No shit the govt has always had a spending problem. Somebody else has been telling you that for a couple of pages now and you were disagreeing with him, and now you suddenly figured that out? God you are an effin moron.
Your own chart shows in the grand scheme of things all of these tax increases and decreases really doesn't impact the amount taken in as taxes as a % of the GDP much at all...the variation is mainly a function of the economy (i.e. pretty much every dip occurs in a recession). The policies (tax and otherwise) does appear to impact the rate that GDP does grow (as shown by the last 8 years of shitty growth in what should have been an absolute boom after the "Great Recession" versus what even you pointed out as being Reagan's much greater growth of the overall economy).
Glad to see the new short buses have wifi installed so we can be graced by your stupidity. Carry on now...
First bold. I've been talking about spending. Dumbass.
Second bold. You are a complete fucking idiot if you think moving 3 to 4 precent of GDP isn't that big of a deal. If revenues went up 3% of GDP this year, we'd go from a $600 billion deficit to a surplus. But you are saying that variation doesn't have an impact?
Comedy from the guy that screams every kids are going to die every time some future increase in spending is reduced.
First, as you yourself fucking said...rates are "relatively low compared to the 60s through mid 80s." Yet by your own plot somehow, magically the govt is taking in about the same % of revenue now as it did then. HondoFS.
You said "This chart needs better scale. But tax cuts in 1986. Tax increase in 1993. Tax cuts in 2001, 2003, 2008. Tax increase in 2011. You can figure the rest out." and then show a chart that basically says you are a moron.
- The 1986 was a tax reform act sponsored in part by Gephardt and was defined as revenue-neutral. It wasn't just tax cuts...it got rid of a bunch of tax loopholes, etc. - You are a moron if you think the % increase in the 1990s was tax and not the internet boom (you can go pull the numbers on the increase in capital gains revenues from stock). - You say 2001 tax cut, but somehow your chart shows revenues cratering in 1999-2000. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the Internet bubble popping and the recession... - 2003 tax cut, yet somehow revenues as a % of GDP went up. Huh.... - 2008 yet again, somehow someway revenues as a % of GDP went down BEFORE any tax cuts were passed. Its like its magic. Or your a moron. Or both.
It's clear you don't understand them. Want me to break it down to the 8th grade level so you can understand it like we do for doogie?
Or how about this. You refute the charts with information on how tax revenue grew after the tax cuts.
Hondo is mad
And dumb.
Govt revenues almost doubled under 8 years of Reagan. HondoFS...
And the economy more than doubled and debt about tripled. Missing context much?
WTF is your speed limit IQ talking about? I wish it almost doubled under Reagan, but it did go up a hell of a lot more than it did over the last 8 year...
No shit the govt has always had a spending problem. Somebody else has been telling you that for a couple of pages now and you were disagreeing with him, and now you suddenly figured that out? God you are an effin moron.
Your own chart shows in the grand scheme of things all of these tax increases and decreases really doesn't impact the amount taken in as taxes as a % of the GDP much at all...the variation is mainly a function of the economy (i.e. pretty much every dip occurs in a recession). The policies (tax and otherwise) does appear to impact the rate that GDP does grow (as shown by the last 8 years of shitty growth in what should have been an absolute boom after the "Great Recession" versus what even you pointed out as being Reagan's much greater growth of the overall economy).
Glad to see the new short buses have wifi installed so we can be graced by your stupidity. Carry on now...
First bold. I've been talking about spending. Dumbass.
Second bold. You are a complete fucking idiot if you think moving 3 to 4 precent of GDP isn't that big of a deal. If revenues went up 3% of GDP this year, we'd go from a $600 billion deficit to a surplus. But you are saying that variation doesn't have an impact?
Comedy from the guy that screams every kids are going to die every time some future increase in spending is reduced.
First, as you yourself fucking said...rates are "relatively low compared to the 60s through mid 80s." Yet by your own plot somehow, magically the govt is taking in about the same % of revenue now as it did then. HondoFS.
You said "This chart needs better scale. But tax cuts in 1986. Tax increase in 1993. Tax cuts in 2001, 2003, 2008. Tax increase in 2011. You can figure the rest out." and then show a chart that basically says you are a moron.
- The 1986 was a tax reform act sponsored in part by Gephardt and was defined as revenue-neutral. It wasn't just tax cuts...it got rid of a bunch of tax loopholes, etc. - You are a moron if you think the % increase in the 1990s was tax and not the internet boom (you can go pull the numbers on the increase in capital gains revenues from stock). - You say 2001 tax cut, but somehow your chart shows revenues cratering in 1999-2000. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the Internet bubble popping and the recession... - 2003 tax cut, yet somehow revenues as a % of GDP went up. Huh.... - 2008 yet again, somehow someway revenues as a % of GDP went down BEFORE any tax cuts were passed. Its like its magic. Or your a moron. Or both.
God you are a fucking moron.
Of course recessions and expansions have an effect on revenues but that's why the chart is based on revenue as a percentage of GDP dumbass. Everything being equal, revenues should grow in relation to tax increases and should be relatively flat as a percentage of GDP. Look at the last 3 years as an example.
I do chuckle at you saying that the 1986 tax cuts were revenue neutral with evidence to the contrary right in front of you. And there was no recession until 1991 so you can't blame the decrease on that.
Actually if you look at the chart, 2000 was the highest revenue year. Not cratering in 1999.
Nice dissertation tho on how you completely make shit up and not even have a basic understanding of the chart you are looking at, but using it to make your point.
It's clear you don't understand them. Want me to break it down to the 8th grade level so you can understand it like we do for doogie?
Or how about this. You refute the charts with information on how tax revenue grew after the tax cuts.
Hondo is mad
And dumb.
Govt revenues almost doubled under 8 years of Reagan. HondoFS...
And the economy more than doubled and debt about tripled. Missing context much?
WTF is your speed limit IQ talking about? I wish it almost doubled under Reagan, but it did go up a hell of a lot more than it did over the last 8 year...
No shit the govt has always had a spending problem. Somebody else has been telling you that for a couple of pages now and you were disagreeing with him, and now you suddenly figured that out? God you are an effin moron.
Your own chart shows in the grand scheme of things all of these tax increases and decreases really doesn't impact the amount taken in as taxes as a % of the GDP much at all...the variation is mainly a function of the economy (i.e. pretty much every dip occurs in a recession). The policies (tax and otherwise) does appear to impact the rate that GDP does grow (as shown by the last 8 years of shitty growth in what should have been an absolute boom after the "Great Recession" versus what even you pointed out as being Reagan's much greater growth of the overall economy).
Glad to see the new short buses have wifi installed so we can be graced by your stupidity. Carry on now...
First bold. I've been talking about spending. Dumbass.
Second bold. You are a complete fucking idiot if you think moving 3 to 4 precent of GDP isn't that big of a deal. If revenues went up 3% of GDP this year, we'd go from a $600 billion deficit to a surplus. But you are saying that variation doesn't have an impact?
Comedy from the guy that screams every kids are going to die every time some future increase in spending is reduced.
First, as you yourself fucking said...rates are "relatively low compared to the 60s through mid 80s." Yet by your own plot somehow, magically the govt is taking in about the same % of revenue now as it did then. HondoFS.
You said "This chart needs better scale. But tax cuts in 1986. Tax increase in 1993. Tax cuts in 2001, 2003, 2008. Tax increase in 2011. You can figure the rest out." and then show a chart that basically says you are a moron.
- The 1986 was a tax reform act sponsored in part by Gephardt and was defined as revenue-neutral. It wasn't just tax cuts...it got rid of a bunch of tax loopholes, etc. - You are a moron if you think the % increase in the 1990s was tax and not the internet boom (you can go pull the numbers on the increase in capital gains revenues from stock). - You say 2001 tax cut, but somehow your chart shows revenues cratering in 1999-2000. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the Internet bubble popping and the recession... - 2003 tax cut, yet somehow revenues as a % of GDP went up. Huh.... - 2008 yet again, somehow someway revenues as a % of GDP went down BEFORE any tax cuts were passed. Its like its magic. Or your a moron. Or both.
God you are a fucking moron.
Of course recessions and expansions have an effect on revenues but that's why the chart is based on revenue as a percentage of GDP dumbass. Everything being equal, revenues should grow in relation to tax increases and should be relatively flat as a percentage of GDP. Look at the last 3 years as an example.
I do chuckle at you saying that the 1986 tax cuts were revenue neutral with evidence to the contrary right in front of you. And there was no recession until 1991 so you can't blame the decrease on that.
Actually if you look at the chart, 2000 was the highest revenue year. Not cratering in 1999.
Nice dissertation tho on how you completely make shit up and not even have a basic understanding of the chart you are looking at, but using it to make your point.
Ants are thankful you are alive because at least they are smarter than something on this planet. I'm too lazy and distracted to point out all that is stupid in your reply, so lets just do one (of many wrong and wacky) claims:
The 1986 effort had one simple idea at its core: revenue neutrality. Some taxes would be cut and some would be raised, but the over-all money taken in by the federal government would remain the same. The idea was to make the tax code fairer and more efficient, not to cut taxes for the sake of cutting taxes. Every serious legislative effort in recent years that proclaims to be “tax reform” has abided by this simple metric. Some policymakers have argued that tax reform should also have “distributional neutrality,” so that that no income group is better or worse off after reform. But, at the very least, tax reform as a concept with any meaning is about changing the code in a way that doesn’t add to the national debt.
Go distract yourself with some shiny objects or something...
It's clear you don't understand them. Want me to break it down to the 8th grade level so you can understand it like we do for doogie?
Or how about this. You refute the charts with information on how tax revenue grew after the tax cuts.
Hondo is mad
And dumb.
Govt revenues almost doubled under 8 years of Reagan. HondoFS...
And the economy more than doubled and debt about tripled. Missing context much?
WTF is your speed limit IQ talking about? I wish it almost doubled under Reagan, but it did go up a hell of a lot more than it did over the last 8 year...
No shit the govt has always had a spending problem. Somebody else has been telling you that for a couple of pages now and you were disagreeing with him, and now you suddenly figured that out? God you are an effin moron.
Your own chart shows in the grand scheme of things all of these tax increases and decreases really doesn't impact the amount taken in as taxes as a % of the GDP much at all...the variation is mainly a function of the economy (i.e. pretty much every dip occurs in a recession). The policies (tax and otherwise) does appear to impact the rate that GDP does grow (as shown by the last 8 years of shitty growth in what should have been an absolute boom after the "Great Recession" versus what even you pointed out as being Reagan's much greater growth of the overall economy).
Glad to see the new short buses have wifi installed so we can be graced by your stupidity. Carry on now...
First bold. I've been talking about spending. Dumbass.
Second bold. You are a complete fucking idiot if you think moving 3 to 4 precent of GDP isn't that big of a deal. If revenues went up 3% of GDP this year, we'd go from a $600 billion deficit to a surplus. But you are saying that variation doesn't have an impact?
Comedy from the guy that screams every kids are going to die every time some future increase in spending is reduced.
First, as you yourself fucking said...rates are "relatively low compared to the 60s through mid 80s." Yet by your own plot somehow, magically the govt is taking in about the same % of revenue now as it did then. HondoFS.
You said "This chart needs better scale. But tax cuts in 1986. Tax increase in 1993. Tax cuts in 2001, 2003, 2008. Tax increase in 2011. You can figure the rest out." and then show a chart that basically says you are a moron.
- The 1986 was a tax reform act sponsored in part by Gephardt and was defined as revenue-neutral. It wasn't just tax cuts...it got rid of a bunch of tax loopholes, etc. - You are a moron if you think the % increase in the 1990s was tax and not the internet boom (you can go pull the numbers on the increase in capital gains revenues from stock). - You say 2001 tax cut, but somehow your chart shows revenues cratering in 1999-2000. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the Internet bubble popping and the recession... - 2003 tax cut, yet somehow revenues as a % of GDP went up. Huh.... - 2008 yet again, somehow someway revenues as a % of GDP went down BEFORE any tax cuts were passed. Its like its magic. Or your a moron. Or both.
God you are a fucking moron.
Of course recessions and expansions have an effect on revenues but that's why the chart is based on revenue as a percentage of GDP dumbass. Everything being equal, revenues should grow in relation to tax increases and should be relatively flat as a percentage of GDP. Look at the last 3 years as an example.
I do chuckle at you saying that the 1986 tax cuts were revenue neutral with evidence to the contrary right in front of you. And there was no recession until 1991 so you can't blame the decrease on that.
Actually if you look at the chart, 2000 was the highest revenue year. Not cratering in 1999.
Nice dissertation tho on how you completely make shit up and not even have a basic understanding of the chart you are looking at, but using it to make your point.
Ants are thankful you are alive because at least they are smarter than something on this planet. I'm too lazy and distracted to point out all that is stupid in your reply, so lets just do one (of many wrong and wacky) claims:
The 1986 effort had one simple idea at its core: revenue neutrality. Some taxes would be cut and some would be raised, but the over-all money taken in by the federal government would remain the same. The idea was to make the tax code fairer and more efficient, not to cut taxes for the sake of cutting taxes. Every serious legislative effort in recent years that proclaims to be “tax reform” has abided by this simple metric. Some policymakers have argued that tax reform should also have “distributional neutrality,” so that that no income group is better or worse off after reform. But, at the very least, tax reform as a concept with any meaning is about changing the code in a way that doesn’t add to the national debt.
Go distract yourself with some shiny objects or something...
It's clear what the intent of the tax cuts was. Yes they intended it to be revenue neutral but it clearly wasn't. And you can look at pretty much every metric and come to that same conclusion. The interesting thing is, that tax cut was bi partisan, both parties had there skin in the game.
That being said, you are making my point. Even when politicians attempt tax cuts to be revenue neutral, the end result isn't revenue neutral.
It's clear you don't understand them. Want me to break it down to the 8th grade level so you can understand it like we do for doogie?
Or how about this. You refute the charts with information on how tax revenue grew after the tax cuts.
Hondo is mad
And dumb.
Govt revenues almost doubled under 8 years of Reagan. HondoFS...
And the economy more than doubled and debt about tripled. Missing context much?
WTF is your speed limit IQ talking about? I wish it almost doubled under Reagan, but it did go up a hell of a lot more than it did over the last 8 year...
No shit the govt has always had a spending problem. Somebody else has been telling you that for a couple of pages now and you were disagreeing with him, and now you suddenly figured that out? God you are an effin moron.
Your own chart shows in the grand scheme of things all of these tax increases and decreases really doesn't impact the amount taken in as taxes as a % of the GDP much at all...the variation is mainly a function of the economy (i.e. pretty much every dip occurs in a recession). The policies (tax and otherwise) does appear to impact the rate that GDP does grow (as shown by the last 8 years of shitty growth in what should have been an absolute boom after the "Great Recession" versus what even you pointed out as being Reagan's much greater growth of the overall economy).
Glad to see the new short buses have wifi installed so we can be graced by your stupidity. Carry on now...
First bold. I've been talking about spending. Dumbass.
Second bold. You are a complete fucking idiot if you think moving 3 to 4 precent of GDP isn't that big of a deal. If revenues went up 3% of GDP this year, we'd go from a $600 billion deficit to a surplus. But you are saying that variation doesn't have an impact?
Comedy from the guy that screams every kids are going to die every time some future increase in spending is reduced.
First, as you yourself fucking said...rates are "relatively low compared to the 60s through mid 80s." Yet by your own plot somehow, magically the govt is taking in about the same % of revenue now as it did then. HondoFS.
You said "This chart needs better scale. But tax cuts in 1986. Tax increase in 1993. Tax cuts in 2001, 2003, 2008. Tax increase in 2011. You can figure the rest out." and then show a chart that basically says you are a moron.
- The 1986 was a tax reform act sponsored in part by Gephardt and was defined as revenue-neutral. It wasn't just tax cuts...it got rid of a bunch of tax loopholes, etc. - You are a moron if you think the % increase in the 1990s was tax and not the internet boom (you can go pull the numbers on the increase in capital gains revenues from stock). - You say 2001 tax cut, but somehow your chart shows revenues cratering in 1999-2000. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the Internet bubble popping and the recession... - 2003 tax cut, yet somehow revenues as a % of GDP went up. Huh.... - 2008 yet again, somehow someway revenues as a % of GDP went down BEFORE any tax cuts were passed. Its like its magic. Or your a moron. Or both.
God you are a fucking moron.
Of course recessions and expansions have an effect on revenues but that's why the chart is based on revenue as a percentage of GDP dumbass. Everything being equal, revenues should grow in relation to tax increases and should be relatively flat as a percentage of GDP. Look at the last 3 years as an example.
I do chuckle at you saying that the 1986 tax cuts were revenue neutral with evidence to the contrary right in front of you. And there was no recession until 1991 so you can't blame the decrease on that.
Actually if you look at the chart, 2000 was the highest revenue year. Not cratering in 1999.
Nice dissertation tho on how you completely make shit up and not even have a basic understanding of the chart you are looking at, but using it to make your point.
Ants are thankful you are alive because at least they are smarter than something on this planet. I'm too lazy and distracted to point out all that is stupid in your reply, so lets just do one (of many wrong and wacky) claims:
The 1986 effort had one simple idea at its core: revenue neutrality. Some taxes would be cut and some would be raised, but the over-all money taken in by the federal government would remain the same. The idea was to make the tax code fairer and more efficient, not to cut taxes for the sake of cutting taxes. Every serious legislative effort in recent years that proclaims to be “tax reform” has abided by this simple metric. Some policymakers have argued that tax reform should also have “distributional neutrality,” so that that no income group is better or worse off after reform. But, at the very least, tax reform as a concept with any meaning is about changing the code in a way that doesn’t add to the national debt.
Go distract yourself with some shiny objects or something...
It's clear what the intent of the tax cuts was. Yes they intended it to be revenue neutral but it clearly wasn't. And you can look at pretty much every metric and come to that same conclusion. The interesting thing is, that tax cut was bi partisan, both parties had there skin in the game.
That being said, you are making my point. Even when politicians attempt tax cuts to be revenue neutral, the end result isn't revenue neutral.
Every time I think you can't say anything dumber you do. The 1986 was designed to be revenue neutral...if it wasn't its because it wasn't the tax code it was other things in the economy driving it. My entire point that you still cannot understand. Hence the "tax increases" Bush signed in 1990 having no real impact on you dumb chart as well. The variation is primary driven by the overall economy and not some nominal tax decrease or increase...its why every downward slope in that chart is match to a recession in the overall economy
It's clear you don't understand them. Want me to break it down to the 8th grade level so you can understand it like we do for doogie?
Or how about this. You refute the charts with information on how tax revenue grew after the tax cuts.
Hondo is mad
And dumb.
Govt revenues almost doubled under 8 years of Reagan. HondoFS...
And the economy more than doubled and debt about tripled. Missing context much?
WTF is your speed limit IQ talking about? I wish it almost doubled under Reagan, but it did go up a hell of a lot more than it did over the last 8 year...
No shit the govt has always had a spending problem. Somebody else has been telling you that for a couple of pages now and you were disagreeing with him, and now you suddenly figured that out? God you are an effin moron.
Your own chart shows in the grand scheme of things all of these tax increases and decreases really doesn't impact the amount taken in as taxes as a % of the GDP much at all...the variation is mainly a function of the economy (i.e. pretty much every dip occurs in a recession). The policies (tax and otherwise) does appear to impact the rate that GDP does grow (as shown by the last 8 years of shitty growth in what should have been an absolute boom after the "Great Recession" versus what even you pointed out as being Reagan's much greater growth of the overall economy).
Glad to see the new short buses have wifi installed so we can be graced by your stupidity. Carry on now...
First bold. I've been talking about spending. Dumbass.
Second bold. You are a complete fucking idiot if you think moving 3 to 4 precent of GDP isn't that big of a deal. If revenues went up 3% of GDP this year, we'd go from a $600 billion deficit to a surplus. But you are saying that variation doesn't have an impact?
Comedy from the guy that screams every kids are going to die every time some future increase in spending is reduced.
First, as you yourself fucking said...rates are "relatively low compared to the 60s through mid 80s." Yet by your own plot somehow, magically the govt is taking in about the same % of revenue now as it did then. HondoFS.
You said "This chart needs better scale. But tax cuts in 1986. Tax increase in 1993. Tax cuts in 2001, 2003, 2008. Tax increase in 2011. You can figure the rest out." and then show a chart that basically says you are a moron.
- The 1986 was a tax reform act sponsored in part by Gephardt and was defined as revenue-neutral. It wasn't just tax cuts...it got rid of a bunch of tax loopholes, etc. - You are a moron if you think the % increase in the 1990s was tax and not the internet boom (you can go pull the numbers on the increase in capital gains revenues from stock). - You say 2001 tax cut, but somehow your chart shows revenues cratering in 1999-2000. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the Internet bubble popping and the recession... - 2003 tax cut, yet somehow revenues as a % of GDP went up. Huh.... - 2008 yet again, somehow someway revenues as a % of GDP went down BEFORE any tax cuts were passed. Its like its magic. Or your a moron. Or both.
God you are a fucking moron.
Of course recessions and expansions have an effect on revenues but that's why the chart is based on revenue as a percentage of GDP dumbass. Everything being equal, revenues should grow in relation to tax increases and should be relatively flat as a percentage of GDP. Look at the last 3 years as an example.
I do chuckle at you saying that the 1986 tax cuts were revenue neutral with evidence to the contrary right in front of you. And there was no recession until 1991 so you can't blame the decrease on that.
Actually if you look at the chart, 2000 was the highest revenue year. Not cratering in 1999.
Nice dissertation tho on how you completely make shit up and not even have a basic understanding of the chart you are looking at, but using it to make your point.
Ants are thankful you are alive because at least they are smarter than something on this planet. I'm too lazy and distracted to point out all that is stupid in your reply, so lets just do one (of many wrong and wacky) claims:
The 1986 effort had one simple idea at its core: revenue neutrality. Some taxes would be cut and some would be raised, but the over-all money taken in by the federal government would remain the same. The idea was to make the tax code fairer and more efficient, not to cut taxes for the sake of cutting taxes. Every serious legislative effort in recent years that proclaims to be “tax reform” has abided by this simple metric. Some policymakers have argued that tax reform should also have “distributional neutrality,” so that that no income group is better or worse off after reform. But, at the very least, tax reform as a concept with any meaning is about changing the code in a way that doesn’t add to the national debt.
Go distract yourself with some shiny objects or something...
It's clear what the intent of the tax cuts was. Yes they intended it to be revenue neutral but it clearly wasn't. And you can look at pretty much every metric and come to that same conclusion. The interesting thing is, that tax cut was bi partisan, both parties had there skin in the game.
That being said, you are making my point. Even when politicians attempt tax cuts to be revenue neutral, the end result isn't revenue neutral.
Every time I think you can't say anything dumber you do. The 1986 was designed to be revenue neutral...if it wasn't its because it wasn't the tax code it was other things in the economy driving it. My entire point that you still cannot understand. Hence the "tax increases" Bush signed in 1990 having no real impact on you dumb chart as well. The variation is primary driven by the overall economy and not some nominal tax decrease or increase...its why every downward slope in that chart is match to a recession in the overall economy
It's clear you don't understand them. Want me to break it down to the 8th grade level so you can understand it like we do for doogie?
Or how about this. You refute the charts with information on how tax revenue grew after the tax cuts.
Hondo is mad
And dumb.
Govt revenues almost doubled under 8 years of Reagan. HondoFS...
And the economy more than doubled and debt about tripled. Missing context much?
WTF is your speed limit IQ talking about? I wish it almost doubled under Reagan, but it did go up a hell of a lot more than it did over the last 8 year...
No shit the govt has always had a spending problem. Somebody else has been telling you that for a couple of pages now and you were disagreeing with him, and now you suddenly figured that out? God you are an effin moron.
Your own chart shows in the grand scheme of things all of these tax increases and decreases really doesn't impact the amount taken in as taxes as a % of the GDP much at all...the variation is mainly a function of the economy (i.e. pretty much every dip occurs in a recession). The policies (tax and otherwise) does appear to impact the rate that GDP does grow (as shown by the last 8 years of shitty growth in what should have been an absolute boom after the "Great Recession" versus what even you pointed out as being Reagan's much greater growth of the overall economy).
Glad to see the new short buses have wifi installed so we can be graced by your stupidity. Carry on now...
First bold. I've been talking about spending. Dumbass.
Second bold. You are a complete fucking idiot if you think moving 3 to 4 precent of GDP isn't that big of a deal. If revenues went up 3% of GDP this year, we'd go from a $600 billion deficit to a surplus. But you are saying that variation doesn't have an impact?
Comedy from the guy that screams every kids are going to die every time some future increase in spending is reduced.
First, as you yourself fucking said...rates are "relatively low compared to the 60s through mid 80s." Yet by your own plot somehow, magically the govt is taking in about the same % of revenue now as it did then. HondoFS.
You said "This chart needs better scale. But tax cuts in 1986. Tax increase in 1993. Tax cuts in 2001, 2003, 2008. Tax increase in 2011. You can figure the rest out." and then show a chart that basically says you are a moron.
- The 1986 was a tax reform act sponsored in part by Gephardt and was defined as revenue-neutral. It wasn't just tax cuts...it got rid of a bunch of tax loopholes, etc. - You are a moron if you think the % increase in the 1990s was tax and not the internet boom (you can go pull the numbers on the increase in capital gains revenues from stock). - You say 2001 tax cut, but somehow your chart shows revenues cratering in 1999-2000. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the Internet bubble popping and the recession... - 2003 tax cut, yet somehow revenues as a % of GDP went up. Huh.... - 2008 yet again, somehow someway revenues as a % of GDP went down BEFORE any tax cuts were passed. Its like its magic. Or your a moron. Or both.
God you are a fucking moron.
Of course recessions and expansions have an effect on revenues but that's why the chart is based on revenue as a percentage of GDP dumbass. Everything being equal, revenues should grow in relation to tax increases and should be relatively flat as a percentage of GDP. Look at the last 3 years as an example.
I do chuckle at you saying that the 1986 tax cuts were revenue neutral with evidence to the contrary right in front of you. And there was no recession until 1991 so you can't blame the decrease on that.
Actually if you look at the chart, 2000 was the highest revenue year. Not cratering in 1999.
Nice dissertation tho on how you completely make shit up and not even have a basic understanding of the chart you are looking at, but using it to make your point.
Ants are thankful you are alive because at least they are smarter than something on this planet. I'm too lazy and distracted to point out all that is stupid in your reply, so lets just do one (of many wrong and wacky) claims:
The 1986 effort had one simple idea at its core: revenue neutrality. Some taxes would be cut and some would be raised, but the over-all money taken in by the federal government would remain the same. The idea was to make the tax code fairer and more efficient, not to cut taxes for the sake of cutting taxes. Every serious legislative effort in recent years that proclaims to be “tax reform” has abided by this simple metric. Some policymakers have argued that tax reform should also have “distributional neutrality,” so that that no income group is better or worse off after reform. But, at the very least, tax reform as a concept with any meaning is about changing the code in a way that doesn’t add to the national debt.
Go distract yourself with some shiny objects or something...
It's clear what the intent of the tax cuts was. Yes they intended it to be revenue neutral but it clearly wasn't. And you can look at pretty much every metric and come to that same conclusion. The interesting thing is, that tax cut was bi partisan, both parties had there skin in the game.
That being said, you are making my point. Even when politicians attempt tax cuts to be revenue neutral, the end result isn't revenue neutral.
Every time I think you can't say anything dumber you do. The 1986 was designed to be revenue neutral...if it wasn't its because it wasn't the tax code it was other things in the economy driving it. My entire point that you still cannot understand. Hence the "tax increases" Bush signed in 1990 having no real impact on you dumb chart as well. The variation is primary driven by the overall economy and not some nominal tax decrease or increase...its why every downward slope in that chart is match to a recession in the overall economy
Moron. Its sad, but you are just a fucking moron. Try not to keep typing and displaying it for everyone to see.
Except your own link shows that there was no recession in 1986 and revenue went down. Da Fuq are you still arguing for?
No, it wasn't a recession. But it was slowing down from the almost ~10% GDP growth per year of the previous few years. And after the budget deal in 1986 revenues as a % of GDP actually went up slightly in 1987 vs. 86 (and to nobody's surprise but yours GDP was up as well).
Why do you keep typing? Its like punching a defenseless handicapped person...I almost feel bad.
Go find a shiny object and entertain yourself. Or post something else really, really stupid on this thead...I'll leave you be and won't point out the sheer stupidity of it...
It's clear you don't understand them. Want me to break it down to the 8th grade level so you can understand it like we do for doogie?
Or how about this. You refute the charts with information on how tax revenue grew after the tax cuts.
Hondo is mad
And dumb.
Govt revenues almost doubled under 8 years of Reagan. HondoFS...
And the economy more than doubled and debt about tripled. Missing context much?
WTF is your speed limit IQ talking about? I wish it almost doubled under Reagan, but it did go up a hell of a lot more than it did over the last 8 year...
No shit the govt has always had a spending problem. Somebody else has been telling you that for a couple of pages now and you were disagreeing with him, and now you suddenly figured that out? God you are an effin moron.
Your own chart shows in the grand scheme of things all of these tax increases and decreases really doesn't impact the amount taken in as taxes as a % of the GDP much at all...the variation is mainly a function of the economy (i.e. pretty much every dip occurs in a recession). The policies (tax and otherwise) does appear to impact the rate that GDP does grow (as shown by the last 8 years of shitty growth in what should have been an absolute boom after the "Great Recession" versus what even you pointed out as being Reagan's much greater growth of the overall economy).
Glad to see the new short buses have wifi installed so we can be graced by your stupidity. Carry on now...
First bold. I've been talking about spending. Dumbass.
Second bold. You are a complete fucking idiot if you think moving 3 to 4 precent of GDP isn't that big of a deal. If revenues went up 3% of GDP this year, we'd go from a $600 billion deficit to a surplus. But you are saying that variation doesn't have an impact?
Comedy from the guy that screams every kids are going to die every time some future increase in spending is reduced.
First, as you yourself fucking said...rates are "relatively low compared to the 60s through mid 80s." Yet by your own plot somehow, magically the govt is taking in about the same % of revenue now as it did then. HondoFS.
You said "This chart needs better scale. But tax cuts in 1986. Tax increase in 1993. Tax cuts in 2001, 2003, 2008. Tax increase in 2011. You can figure the rest out." and then show a chart that basically says you are a moron.
- The 1986 was a tax reform act sponsored in part by Gephardt and was defined as revenue-neutral. It wasn't just tax cuts...it got rid of a bunch of tax loopholes, etc. - You are a moron if you think the % increase in the 1990s was tax and not the internet boom (you can go pull the numbers on the increase in capital gains revenues from stock). - You say 2001 tax cut, but somehow your chart shows revenues cratering in 1999-2000. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the Internet bubble popping and the recession... - 2003 tax cut, yet somehow revenues as a % of GDP went up. Huh.... - 2008 yet again, somehow someway revenues as a % of GDP went down BEFORE any tax cuts were passed. Its like its magic. Or your a moron. Or both.
God you are a fucking moron.
Of course recessions and expansions have an effect on revenues but that's why the chart is based on revenue as a percentage of GDP dumbass. Everything being equal, revenues should grow in relation to tax increases and should be relatively flat as a percentage of GDP. Look at the last 3 years as an example.
I do chuckle at you saying that the 1986 tax cuts were revenue neutral with evidence to the contrary right in front of you. And there was no recession until 1991 so you can't blame the decrease on that.
Actually if you look at the chart, 2000 was the highest revenue year. Not cratering in 1999.
Nice dissertation tho on how you completely make shit up and not even have a basic understanding of the chart you are looking at, but using it to make your point.
Ants are thankful you are alive because at least they are smarter than something on this planet. I'm too lazy and distracted to point out all that is stupid in your reply, so lets just do one (of many wrong and wacky) claims:
The 1986 effort had one simple idea at its core: revenue neutrality. Some taxes would be cut and some would be raised, but the over-all money taken in by the federal government would remain the same. The idea was to make the tax code fairer and more efficient, not to cut taxes for the sake of cutting taxes. Every serious legislative effort in recent years that proclaims to be “tax reform” has abided by this simple metric. Some policymakers have argued that tax reform should also have “distributional neutrality,” so that that no income group is better or worse off after reform. But, at the very least, tax reform as a concept with any meaning is about changing the code in a way that doesn’t add to the national debt.
Go distract yourself with some shiny objects or something...
It's clear what the intent of the tax cuts was. Yes they intended it to be revenue neutral but it clearly wasn't. And you can look at pretty much every metric and come to that same conclusion. The interesting thing is, that tax cut was bi partisan, both parties had there skin in the game.
That being said, you are making my point. Even when politicians attempt tax cuts to be revenue neutral, the end result isn't revenue neutral.
Every time I think you can't say anything dumber you do. The 1986 was designed to be revenue neutral...if it wasn't its because it wasn't the tax code it was other things in the economy driving it. My entire point that you still cannot understand. Hence the "tax increases" Bush signed in 1990 having no real impact on you dumb chart as well. The variation is primary driven by the overall economy and not some nominal tax decrease or increase...its why every downward slope in that chart is match to a recession in the overall economy
Moron. Its sad, but you are just a fucking moron. Try not to keep typing and displaying it for everyone to see.
Except your own link shows that there was no recession in 1986 and revenue went down. Da Fuq are you still arguing for?
No, it wasn't a recession. But it was slowing down from the almost ~10% GDP growth per year of the previous few years. And after the budget deal in 1986 revenues as a % of GDP actually went up slightly in 1987 vs. 86 (and to nobody's surprise but yours GDP was up as well).
Why do you keep typing? Its like punching a defenseless handicapped person...I almost feel bad.
Go find a shiny object and entertain yourself. Or post something else really, really stupid on this thead...I'll leave you be and won't point out the sheer stupidity of it...
What part are you confused by again moron? Now you want to debate the differences between nominal and real GDP as a basis (which is irrelevant to this discussion) because all your other claims are shit?
What part are you confused by again moron? Now you want to debate the differences between nominal and real GDP as a basis (which is irrelevant to this discussion) because all your other claims are shit?
HondoFS...
You'll like this one. So you are saying Obama has had greater than 3% growth every year of his presidency but his first year? Look at the top of your link.
Comments
No shit the govt has always had a spending problem. Somebody else has been telling you that for a couple of pages now and you were disagreeing with him, and now you suddenly figured that out? God you are an effin moron.
Your own chart shows in the grand scheme of things all of these tax increases and decreases really doesn't impact the amount taken in as taxes as a % of the GDP much at all...the variation is mainly a function of the economy (i.e. pretty much every dip occurs in a recession). The policies (tax and otherwise) does appear to impact the rate that GDP does grow (as shown by the last 8 years of shitty growth in what should have been an absolute boom after the "Great Recession" versus what even you pointed out as being Reagan's much greater growth of the overall economy).
Glad to see the new short buses have wifi installed so we can be graced by your stupidity. Carry on now...
Debt to gnp isn’t near 120 now and it’s not forecasted to sniff it anytime soon. It wasn’t an excuse. It was a commentary. The big bounce back from the Great Recession is afoot. While the ratio is forecast to remain steady for a few years, it has a better shot of lowering. Unless we go to war against China/Russia, there are no more $3 Trillion “wars” to be taken on. And if that were to happen, debt is the least of our concerns. The dirty work has been done. And it’s maintenance money now.
Second bold. You are a complete fucking idiot if you think moving 3 to 4 precent of GDP isn't that big of a deal. If revenues went up 3% of GDP this year, we'd go from a $600 billion deficit to a surplus. But you are saying that variation doesn't have an impact?
First, as you yourself fucking said...rates are "relatively low compared to the 60s through mid 80s." Yet by your own plot somehow, magically the govt is taking in about the same % of revenue now as it did then. HondoFS.
You said "This chart needs better scale. But tax cuts in 1986. Tax increase in 1993. Tax cuts in 2001, 2003, 2008. Tax increase in 2011. You can figure the rest out." and then show a chart that basically says you are a moron.
- The 1986 was a tax reform act sponsored in part by Gephardt and was defined as revenue-neutral. It wasn't just tax cuts...it got rid of a bunch of tax loopholes, etc.
- You are a moron if you think the % increase in the 1990s was tax and not the internet boom (you can go pull the numbers on the increase in capital gains revenues from stock).
- You say 2001 tax cut, but somehow your chart shows revenues cratering in 1999-2000. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the Internet bubble popping and the recession...
- 2003 tax cut, yet somehow revenues as a % of GDP went up. Huh....
- 2008 yet again, somehow someway revenues as a % of GDP went down BEFORE any tax cuts were passed. Its like its magic. Or your a moron. Or both.
God you are a fucking moron.
You are gay
I do chuckle at you saying that the 1986 tax cuts were revenue neutral with evidence to the contrary right in front of you. And there was no recession until 1991 so you can't blame the decrease on that.
Actually if you look at the chart, 2000 was the highest revenue year. Not cratering in 1999.
Nice dissertation tho on how you completely make shit up and not even have a basic understanding of the chart you are looking at, but using it to make your point.
(from one of the first links that came up in Google, and a Liberal one at that):
https://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/how-republicans-ditched-tax-reform-for-tax-cuts
The 1986 effort had one simple idea at its core: revenue neutrality. Some taxes would be cut and some would be raised, but the over-all money taken in by the federal government would remain the same. The idea was to make the tax code fairer and more efficient, not to cut taxes for the sake of cutting taxes. Every serious legislative effort in recent years that proclaims to be “tax reform” has abided by this simple metric. Some policymakers have argued that tax reform should also have “distributional neutrality,” so that that no income group is better or worse off after reform. But, at the very least, tax reform as a concept with any meaning is about changing the code in a way that doesn’t add to the national debt.
Go distract yourself with some shiny objects or something...
That being said, you are making my point. Even when politicians attempt tax cuts to be revenue neutral, the end result isn't revenue neutral.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S
Moron. Its sad, but you are just a fucking moron. Try not to keep typing and displaying it for everyone to see.
Why do you keep typing? Its like punching a defenseless handicapped person...I almost feel bad.
Go find a shiny object and entertain yourself. Or post something else really, really stupid on this thead...I'll leave you be and won't point out the sheer stupidity of it...
http://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-year
What part are you confused by again moron? Now you want to debate the differences between nominal and real GDP as a basis (which is irrelevant to this discussion) because all your other claims are shit?
HondoFS...
Holy shit you feel pretty stupid right now.