Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Explain, in your words why revenue needs to increase to the size of the economy. Dumb fuck.
I didn't say it needs to increase the size of the economy as a blanket statement as you are dumbfuck. However, if you are trying to balance the budget, or even come close. You can't have revenue increasing slower than the economy while having expenditures grow with the economy. And basically no politicians willing to cut expenditures.
That's basic math Mike. I thought you might be smarter than that but apparently not.
I should go back and pull up the posts on December 2017 of you shitdicks arguing ad nauseum that cutting taxes would reduce the deficit.
Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Explain, in your words why revenue needs to increase to the size of the economy. Dumb fuck.
I didn't say it needs to increase the size of the economy as a blanket statement as you are dumbfuck. However, if you are trying to balance the budget, or even come close. You can't have revenue increasing slower than the economy while having expenditures grow with the economy. And basically no politicians willing to cut expenditures.
That's basic math Mike. I thought you might be smarter than that but apparently not.
I should go back and pull up the posts on December 2017 of you shitdicks arguing ad nauseum that cutting taxes would reduce the deficit.
It is not the government’s inherent right or purpose to increase taxes at the rate of economic growth.
Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Explain, in your words why revenue needs to increase to the size of the economy. Dumb fuck.
I didn't say it needs to increase the size of the economy as a blanket statement as you are dumbfuck. However, if you are trying to balance the budget, or even come close. You can't have revenue increasing slower than the economy while having expenditures grow with the economy. And basically no politicians willing to cut expenditures.
That's basic math Mike. I thought you might be smarter than that but apparently not.
I should go back and pull up the posts on December 2017 of you shitdicks arguing ad nauseum that cutting taxes would reduce the deficit.
It is not the government’s inherent right or purpose to increase taxes at the rate of economic growth.
That's a completely different discussion than the one we are having. In the context of balancing the budget or reducing the deficit. Revenues have to increase at least as fast as, or faster than, the economy. Look at the 90s for instance. It's not a coincidence than there was a tax increase, spending cuts, and great growth that led to a balanced budget.
Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Explain, in your words why revenue needs to increase to the size of the economy. Dumb fuck.
I didn't say it needs to increase the size of the economy as a blanket statement as you are dumbfuck. However, if you are trying to balance the budget, or even come close. You can't have revenue increasing slower than the economy while having expenditures grow with the economy. And basically no politicians willing to cut expenditures.
That's basic math Mike. I thought you might be smarter than that but apparently not.
I should go back and pull up the posts on December 2017 of you shitdicks arguing ad nauseum that cutting taxes would reduce the deficit.
I challenge you to find a post where I said tax cuts would cut the deficit. It possible I said they may increase revenue, so I was right there.
You seem to think Congress is trying to balance the budget. What a fucking idiot.
Hondo falls for the common myth in Econ that all else will remain equal. If taxes are raised, all other variables are unchanged, therefore fthe only outcome is more revenue.
Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Explain, in your words why revenue needs to increase to the size of the economy. Dumb fuck.
I didn't say it needs to increase the size of the economy as a blanket statement as you are dumbfuck. However, if you are trying to balance the budget, or even come close. You can't have revenue increasing slower than the economy while having expenditures grow with the economy. And basically no politicians willing to cut expenditures.
That's basic math Mike. I thought you might be smarter than that but apparently not.
I should go back and pull up the posts on December 2017 of you shitdicks arguing ad nauseum that cutting taxes would reduce the deficit.
It is not the government’s inherent right or purpose to increase taxes at the rate of economic growth.
That's a completely different discussion than the one we are having. In the context of balancing the budget or reducing the deficit. Revenues have to increase at least as fast as, or faster than, the economy. Look at the 90s for instance. It's not a coincidence than there was a tax increase, spending cuts, and great growth that led to a balanced budget.
Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Explain, in your words why revenue needs to increase to the size of the economy. Dumb fuck.
I didn't say it needs to increase the size of the economy as a blanket statement as you are dumbfuck. However, if you are trying to balance the budget, or even come close. You can't have revenue increasing slower than the economy while having expenditures grow with the economy. And basically no politicians willing to cut expenditures.
That's basic math Mike. I thought you might be smarter than that but apparently not.
I should go back and pull up the posts on December 2017 of you shitdicks arguing ad nauseum that cutting taxes would reduce the deficit.
It is not the government’s inherent right or purpose to increase taxes at the rate of economic growth.
That's a completely different discussion than the one we are having. In the context of balancing the budget or reducing the deficit. Revenues have to increase at least as fast as, or faster than, the economy. Look at the 90s for instance. It's not a coincidence than there was a tax increase, spending cuts, and great growth that led to a balanced budget.
No. No they don’t. Govt Revenue does NOT have to keep pace with ‘the economy’
Revenues need to outpace expenditures (at a base level, BARELY outpace expenditures. There is no mandate or requirement that expenditures need to keep pace with GDP or any other measure of economic growth. Yours is an absolute fallacy which is probably the primary reason the deficits keep growing - it’s almost the very basis of year over year budgeting with no recognition of actual expenditures. Government agencies feel they are being good stewards by ‘only’ spending a wee bit more than last year percentage-wise or keeping pace with GDP or inflation.
It’s total bullshit. No corporate restructuring or reorganization would ever take that approach. They’d look at actual spending. Real dollars. Not pegging a percentage on some index. That’s just fucked up finance.
Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Explain, in your words why revenue needs to increase to the size of the economy. Dumb fuck.
I didn't say it needs to increase the size of the economy as a blanket statement as you are dumbfuck. However, if you are trying to balance the budget, or even come close. You can't have revenue increasing slower than the economy while having expenditures grow with the economy. And basically no politicians willing to cut expenditures.
That's basic math Mike. I thought you might be smarter than that but apparently not.
I should go back and pull up the posts on December 2017 of you shitdicks arguing ad nauseum that cutting taxes would reduce the deficit.
I challenge you to find a post where I said tax cuts would cut the deficit. It possible I said they may increase revenue, so I was right there.
You seem to think Congress is trying to balance the budget. What a fucking idiot.
Hondo falls for the common myth in Econ that all else will remain equal. If taxes are raised, all other variables are unchanged, therefore fthe only outcome is more revenue.
You do realize that saying revenues would go up like 1% while the economy has increased 5+% over two years is fucktarded right?
I don't recall what you said. I just remember Houston arguing like a clown all fucking day and how wrong he was.
I think I've said repeatedly that almost no one in Congress wants to balance the budget. Which is hilarious given how the GOP cried about deficits under Obama. And most of you shitdicks here cried about the deficit as well. Now the deficit doesn't matter again cause it's your guy in the White House.
Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Explain, in your words why revenue needs to increase to the size of the economy. Dumb fuck.
I didn't say it needs to increase the size of the economy as a blanket statement as you are dumbfuck. However, if you are trying to balance the budget, or even come close. You can't have revenue increasing slower than the economy while having expenditures grow with the economy. And basically no politicians willing to cut expenditures.
That's basic math Mike. I thought you might be smarter than that but apparently not.
I should go back and pull up the posts on December 2017 of you shitdicks arguing ad nauseum that cutting taxes would reduce the deficit.
I challenge you to find a post where I said tax cuts would cut the deficit. It possible I said they may increase revenue, so I was right there.
You seem to think Congress is trying to balance the budget. What a fucking idiot.
Hondo falls for the common myth in Econ that all else will remain equal. If taxes are raised, all other variables are unchanged, therefore fthe only outcome is more revenue.
You do realize that saying revenues would go up like 1% while the economy has increased 5+% over two years is fucktarded right?
I don't recall what you said. I just remember Houston arguing like a clown all fucking day and how wrong he was.
I think I've said repeatedly that almost no one in Congress wants to balance the budget. Which is hilarious given how the GOP cried about deficits under Obama. And most of you shitdicks here cried about the deficit as well. Now the deficit doesn't matter again cause it's your guy in the White House.
What’s more fucktarded is not understanding Hauser's law. What an idiot.
Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Explain, in your words why revenue needs to increase to the size of the economy. Dumb fuck.
I didn't say it needs to increase the size of the economy as a blanket statement as you are dumbfuck. However, if you are trying to balance the budget, or even come close. You can't have revenue increasing slower than the economy while having expenditures grow with the economy. And basically no politicians willing to cut expenditures.
That's basic math Mike. I thought you might be smarter than that but apparently not.
I should go back and pull up the posts on December 2017 of you shitdicks arguing ad nauseum that cutting taxes would reduce the deficit.
I challenge you to find a post where I said tax cuts would cut the deficit. It possible I said they may increase revenue, so I was right there.
You seem to think Congress is trying to balance the budget. What a fucking idiot.
Hondo falls for the common myth in Econ that all else will remain equal. If taxes are raised, all other variables are unchanged, therefore fthe only outcome is more revenue.
You do realize that saying revenues would go up like 1% while the economy has increased 5+% over two years is fucktarded right?
I don't recall what you said. I just remember Houston arguing like a clown all fucking day and how wrong he was.
I think I've said repeatedly that almost no one in Congress wants to balance the budget. Which is hilarious given how the GOP cried about deficits under Obama. And most of you shitdicks here cried about the deficit as well. Now the deficit doesn't matter again cause it's your guy in the White House.
What’s more fucktarded is not understanding Hauser's law. What an idiot.
What's more fucktarded is you don't realize that 3-4.5% of GDP is a huge fucking number. Hauser's "law" was created for simpletons like you. There's even a cool graph with a messed up scale that makes it look like it never really changes. Cause simple minds like you don't don't stop and wonder how big 1% is GDP is.
Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Explain, in your words why revenue needs to increase to the size of the economy. Dumb fuck.
I didn't say it needs to increase the size of the economy as a blanket statement as you are dumbfuck. However, if you are trying to balance the budget, or even come close. You can't have revenue increasing slower than the economy while having expenditures grow with the economy. And basically no politicians willing to cut expenditures.
That's basic math Mike. I thought you might be smarter than that but apparently not.
I should go back and pull up the posts on December 2017 of you shitdicks arguing ad nauseum that cutting taxes would reduce the deficit.
I challenge you to find a post where I said tax cuts would cut the deficit. It possible I said they may increase revenue, so I was right there.
You seem to think Congress is trying to balance the budget. What a fucking idiot.
Hondo falls for the common myth in Econ that all else will remain equal. If taxes are raised, all other variables are unchanged, therefore fthe only outcome is more revenue.
You do realize that saying revenues would go up like 1% while the economy has increased 5+% over two years is fucktarded right?
I don't recall what you said. I just remember Houston arguing like a clown all fucking day and how wrong he was.
I think I've said repeatedly that almost no one in Congress wants to balance the budget. Which is hilarious given how the GOP cried about deficits under Obama. And most of you shitdicks here cried about the deficit as well. Now the deficit doesn't matter again cause it's your guy in the White House.
What’s more fucktarded is not understanding Hauser's law. What an idiot.
What's more fucktarded is you don't realize that 3-4.5% of GDP is a huge fucking number. Hauser's "law" was created for simpletons like you. There's even a cool graph with a messed up scale that makes it look like it never really changes. Cause simple minds like you don't don't stop and wonder how big 1% is GDP is.
What’s even more fucktarded is a monkey like you not realizing that very little has changed in the past 60 years, except spending. Yet you jump around like a moron yelling about graphs scales, but don’t apply your same logic to the actual problem, spending.
Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Explain, in your words why revenue needs to increase to the size of the economy. Dumb fuck.
I didn't say it needs to increase the size of the economy as a blanket statement as you are dumbfuck. However, if you are trying to balance the budget, or even come close. You can't have revenue increasing slower than the economy while having expenditures grow with the economy. And basically no politicians willing to cut expenditures.
That's basic math Mike. I thought you might be smarter than that but apparently not.
I should go back and pull up the posts on December 2017 of you shitdicks arguing ad nauseum that cutting taxes would reduce the deficit.
I challenge you to find a post where I said tax cuts would cut the deficit. It possible I said they may increase revenue, so I was right there.
You seem to think Congress is trying to balance the budget. What a fucking idiot.
Hondo falls for the common myth in Econ that all else will remain equal. If taxes are raised, all other variables are unchanged, therefore fthe only outcome is more revenue.
You do realize that saying revenues would go up like 1% while the economy has increased 5+% over two years is fucktarded right?
I don't recall what you said. I just remember Houston arguing like a clown all fucking day and how wrong he was.
I think I've said repeatedly that almost no one in Congress wants to balance the budget. Which is hilarious given how the GOP cried about deficits under Obama. And most of you shitdicks here cried about the deficit as well. Now the deficit doesn't matter again cause it's your guy in the White House.
What’s more fucktarded is not understanding Hauser's law. What an idiot.
What's more fucktarded is you don't realize that 3-4.5% of GDP is a huge fucking number. Hauser's "law" was created for simpletons like you. There's even a cool graph with a messed up scale that makes it look like it never really changes. Cause simple minds like you don't don't stop and wonder how big 1% is GDP is.
What’s even more fucktarded is a monkey like you not realizing that very little has changed in the past 60 years, except spending. Yet you jump around like a moron yelling about graphs scales, but don’t apply your same logic to the actual problem, spending.
“Very little” has changed other then the effective tax rate on the highest earning 400 Americans has gone from 70% to 23% to the point where the richest Americans now pay a lower effective rate than any other group. Mike the dumbass nails it yet again...fs
Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Explain, in your words why revenue needs to increase to the size of the economy. Dumb fuck.
I didn't say it needs to increase the size of the economy as a blanket statement as you are dumbfuck. However, if you are trying to balance the budget, or even come close. You can't have revenue increasing slower than the economy while having expenditures grow with the economy. And basically no politicians willing to cut expenditures.
That's basic math Mike. I thought you might be smarter than that but apparently not.
I should go back and pull up the posts on December 2017 of you shitdicks arguing ad nauseum that cutting taxes would reduce the deficit.
I challenge you to find a post where I said tax cuts would cut the deficit. It possible I said they may increase revenue, so I was right there.
You seem to think Congress is trying to balance the budget. What a fucking idiot.
Hondo falls for the common myth in Econ that all else will remain equal. If taxes are raised, all other variables are unchanged, therefore fthe only outcome is more revenue.
You do realize that saying revenues would go up like 1% while the economy has increased 5+% over two years is fucktarded right?
I don't recall what you said. I just remember Houston arguing like a clown all fucking day and how wrong he was.
I think I've said repeatedly that almost no one in Congress wants to balance the budget. Which is hilarious given how the GOP cried about deficits under Obama. And most of you shitdicks here cried about the deficit as well. Now the deficit doesn't matter again cause it's your guy in the White House.
What’s more fucktarded is not understanding Hauser's law. What an idiot.
What's more fucktarded is you don't realize that 3-4.5% of GDP is a huge fucking number. Hauser's "law" was created for simpletons like you. There's even a cool graph with a messed up scale that makes it look like it never really changes. Cause simple minds like you don't don't stop and wonder how big 1% is GDP is.
What’s even more fucktarded is a monkey like you not realizing that very little has changed in the past 60 years, except spending. Yet you jump around like a moron yelling about graphs scales, but don’t apply your same logic to the actual problem, spending.
“Very little” has changed other then the effective tax rate on the highest earning 400 Americans has gone from 70% to 23% to the point where the richest Americans now pay a lower effective rate than any other group. Mike the dumbass nails it yet again...fs
Ok... so let’s say we go your way and taxed the top 400 at 70% or 80 or 100. Have you actually done the math on how much that revenue that much actual revenue that is? I know it feels good for leftists to try to crush the rich basted emotions of hate and jealousy, so can we get the numbers from you on what the impact would be?
Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Explain, in your words why revenue needs to increase to the size of the economy. Dumb fuck.
I didn't say it needs to increase the size of the economy as a blanket statement as you are dumbfuck. However, if you are trying to balance the budget, or even come close. You can't have revenue increasing slower than the economy while having expenditures grow with the economy. And basically no politicians willing to cut expenditures.
That's basic math Mike. I thought you might be smarter than that but apparently not.
I should go back and pull up the posts on December 2017 of you shitdicks arguing ad nauseum that cutting taxes would reduce the deficit.
I challenge you to find a post where I said tax cuts would cut the deficit. It possible I said they may increase revenue, so I was right there.
You seem to think Congress is trying to balance the budget. What a fucking idiot.
Hondo falls for the common myth in Econ that all else will remain equal. If taxes are raised, all other variables are unchanged, therefore fthe only outcome is more revenue.
You do realize that saying revenues would go up like 1% while the economy has increased 5+% over two years is fucktarded right?
I don't recall what you said. I just remember Houston arguing like a clown all fucking day and how wrong he was.
I think I've said repeatedly that almost no one in Congress wants to balance the budget. Which is hilarious given how the GOP cried about deficits under Obama. And most of you shitdicks here cried about the deficit as well. Now the deficit doesn't matter again cause it's your guy in the White House.
What’s more fucktarded is not understanding Hauser's law. What an idiot.
What's more fucktarded is you don't realize that 3-4.5% of GDP is a huge fucking number. Hauser's "law" was created for simpletons like you. There's even a cool graph with a messed up scale that makes it look like it never really changes. Cause simple minds like you don't don't stop and wonder how big 1% is GDP is.
What’s even more fucktarded is a monkey like you not realizing that very little has changed in the past 60 years, except spending. Yet you jump around like a moron yelling about graphs scales, but don’t apply your same logic to the actual problem, spending.
“Very little” has changed other then the effective tax rate on the highest earning 400 Americans has gone from 70% to 23% to the point where the richest Americans now pay a lower effective rate than any other group. Mike the dumbass nails it yet again...fs
Ok... so let’s say we go your way and taxed the top 400 at 70% or 80 or 100. Have you actually done the math on how much that revenue that much actual revenue that is? I know it feels good for leftists to try to crush the rich basted emotions of hate and jealousy, so can we get the numbers from you on what the impact would be?
Why are you so patently dishonest? I never said I wanted them taxed at 70% or 80% or 100% now. I’m simply pointing out your comment that nothing has changed other than spending is a lie. I do think our system is screwed up when People like Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffet are paying a lower effective rate than their admins.
The top 1 percent’s effective tax rate has consistently been below the top marginal income tax rate. Though this IRS data set only reaches back to 1986, another data set shows that the difference between these two tax rates used to be even greater. For example, in the 1950s, when the top marginal income tax rate reached 92 percent, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an effective rate of only 16.9 percent. Although the two data sets are not strictly comparable, they nevertheless show the consistency of the gap between the top marginal income tax rate and the effective rate.
As this chart illustrates, higher marginal income tax rates didn’t necessarily result in a higher income tax burden for the wealthiest taxpayers. In fact, as the top marginal income tax rate has fallen, the top 1 percent’s income tax burden has increased. In 1986, the top marginal income tax rate was 50 percent, and the top 1 percent paid 25.8 percent of all income taxes; thirty years later, the top marginal income tax rate had fallen to 39.6 percent, but the top 1 percent’s share of income taxes had risen to 37.3 percent.
The growth of tax expenditures in recent decades has increased the percentage of nonpayers (taxpayers who owe zero income taxes after taking their deductions and exemptions), putting a greater share of the tax burden on those who continue to pay, meaning the top 1 percent now pays an increased share of the tax burden. The Tax Reform Act of 1986’s expansion of the standard deduction and the personal exemption, and more recently the creation and expansion of credits such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit, have increased the percentage of the population with a negative effective tax rate.
Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Da fuq difference does it make what anyone pays in taxes?!?
The debt ceiling is apparently unlimited and annual deficits have no meaning.
Until the endless wars and re-fucking-diculous spending ends, this who pays more argument is exactly what the two parties want as the shiny object to stay in power.
Wake up, sheeple.
I agree with most of this. Although to reduce the deficit it has to be both revenues and expenditures. Like you said, but in a different way. No politician is actually going to cut spending. Even tho Americans hate the wasteful spending, they all want their money still. Yes even the wealthy want the money spent their way too.
Since revenue is up it seems like all that’s left to do is cut spending. Why won’t they?
Revenue is down relative to the size of the economy. Idiot.
And yes we need to cut spending but neither party will. For reasons I've stated many times. Even in the post you quoted. You really are struggling today.
Explain, in your words why revenue needs to increase to the size of the economy. Dumb fuck.
I didn't say it needs to increase the size of the economy as a blanket statement as you are dumbfuck. However, if you are trying to balance the budget, or even come close. You can't have revenue increasing slower than the economy while having expenditures grow with the economy. And basically no politicians willing to cut expenditures.
That's basic math Mike. I thought you might be smarter than that but apparently not.
I should go back and pull up the posts on December 2017 of you shitdicks arguing ad nauseum that cutting taxes would reduce the deficit.
I challenge you to find a post where I said tax cuts would cut the deficit. It possible I said they may increase revenue, so I was right there.
You seem to think Congress is trying to balance the budget. What a fucking idiot.
Hondo falls for the common myth in Econ that all else will remain equal. If taxes are raised, all other variables are unchanged, therefore fthe only outcome is more revenue.
You do realize that saying revenues would go up like 1% while the economy has increased 5+% over two years is fucktarded right?
I don't recall what you said. I just remember Houston arguing like a clown all fucking day and how wrong he was.
I think I've said repeatedly that almost no one in Congress wants to balance the budget. Which is hilarious given how the GOP cried about deficits under Obama. And most of you shitdicks here cried about the deficit as well. Now the deficit doesn't matter again cause it's your guy in the White House.
What’s more fucktarded is not understanding Hauser's law. What an idiot.
What's more fucktarded is you don't realize that 3-4.5% of GDP is a huge fucking number. Hauser's "law" was created for simpletons like you. There's even a cool graph with a messed up scale that makes it look like it never really changes. Cause simple minds like you don't don't stop and wonder how big 1% is GDP is.
What’s even more fucktarded is a monkey like you not realizing that very little has changed in the past 60 years, except spending. Yet you jump around like a moron yelling about graphs scales, but don’t apply your same logic to the actual problem, spending.
“Very little” has changed other then the effective tax rate on the highest earning 400 Americans has gone from 70% to 23% to the point where the richest Americans now pay a lower effective rate than any other group. Mike the dumbass nails it yet again...fs
Ok... so let’s say we go your way and taxed the top 400 at 70% or 80 or 100. Have you actually done the math on how much that revenue that much actual revenue that is? I know it feels good for leftists to try to crush the rich basted emotions of hate and jealousy, so can we get the numbers from you on what the impact would be?
Why are you so patently dishonest? I never said I wanted them taxed at 70% or 80% or 100% now. I’m simply pointing out your comment that nothing has changed other than spending is a lie. I do think our system is screwed up when People like Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffet are paying a lower effective rate than their admins.
So what’s your point? If not revenue, what is it? I think we are finally getting to the root of your pathology.
The top 1 percent’s effective tax rate has consistently been below the top marginal income tax rate. Though this IRS data set only reaches back to 1986, another data set shows that the difference between these two tax rates used to be even greater. For example, in the 1950s, when the top marginal income tax rate reached 92 percent, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an effective rate of only 16.9 percent. Although the two data sets are not strictly comparable, they nevertheless show the consistency of the gap between the top marginal income tax rate and the effective rate.
Nevermind that Bob. We are now starting to discover it’s not about revenue, it’s an hysteria fueled but hatred, jealousy and greed.
My “solution” to what GDS is hysterical about would be to lower the rate on the people he’s worried about, not raise them on others out of petty jealousy.
The entire premise of the thread is based on a lie. The evil rich are actually paying a greater share now of the tax burden then they did when the top marginal tax rate was higher.
Comments
That's basic math Mike. I thought you might be smarter than that but apparently not.
I should go back and pull up the posts on December 2017 of you shitdicks arguing ad nauseum that cutting taxes would reduce the deficit.
You seem to think Congress is trying to balance the budget. What a fucking idiot.
Hondo falls for the common myth in Econ that all else will remain equal. If taxes are raised, all other variables are unchanged, therefore fthe only outcome is more revenue.
Revenues need to outpace expenditures (at a base level, BARELY outpace expenditures. There is no mandate or requirement that expenditures need to keep pace with GDP or any other measure of economic growth. Yours is an absolute fallacy which is probably the primary reason the deficits keep growing - it’s almost the very basis of year over year budgeting with no recognition of actual expenditures. Government agencies feel they are being good stewards by ‘only’ spending a wee bit more than last year percentage-wise or keeping pace with GDP or inflation.
It’s total bullshit. No corporate restructuring or reorganization would ever take that approach. They’d look at actual spending. Real dollars. Not pegging a percentage on some index. That’s just fucked up finance.
I don't recall what you said. I just remember Houston arguing like a clown all fucking day and how wrong he was.
I think I've said repeatedly that almost no one in Congress wants to balance the budget. Which is hilarious given how the GOP cried about deficits under Obama. And most of you shitdicks here cried about the deficit as well. Now the deficit doesn't matter again cause it's your guy in the White House.
The top 1 percent’s effective tax rate has consistently been below the top marginal income tax rate. Though this IRS data set only reaches back to 1986, another data set shows that the difference between these two tax rates used to be even greater. For example, in the 1950s, when the top marginal income tax rate reached 92 percent, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an effective rate of only 16.9 percent. Although the two data sets are not strictly comparable, they nevertheless show the consistency of the gap between the top marginal income tax rate and the effective rate.
As this chart illustrates, higher marginal income tax rates didn’t necessarily result in a higher income tax burden for the wealthiest taxpayers. In fact, as the top marginal income tax rate has fallen, the top 1 percent’s income tax burden has increased. In 1986, the top marginal income tax rate was 50 percent, and the top 1 percent paid 25.8 percent of all income taxes; thirty years later, the top marginal income tax rate had fallen to 39.6 percent, but the top 1 percent’s share of income taxes had risen to 37.3 percent.
Nevermind that Bob. We are now starting to discover it’s not about revenue, it’s an hysteria fueled but hatred, jealousy and greed.
My “solution” to what GDS is hysterical about would be to lower the rate on the people he’s worried about, not raise them on others out of petty jealousy.