UJ's Hamster Died. We're All That's Left...
https://ujrefugees.net/
If there is one thing that I have learned in my years at Uj and Ujref it is that your grasp of anything to do with money, be it taxes, the markets or even the most basic of economic concepts, is extremely shaky.
Yes, about 1%, i.e. less than inflation and therefore a revenue cut in real terms. But regardless, can you grasp that they are lower than they'd have been without the cuts? There is in fact significantly less revenue? It is the purpose and point of a tax cut.Biker wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:29 pmYou do understand that revenues are higher now than before the trump cuts, right?analhamster wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:56 pm Seems to be part of the propaganda matrix the dumber righties fall for, that revenue raising is not a key part of the equation.
Holy shit, dude! You do realize that if the government cuts taxes, then the government makes LESS revenue? Right?Biker wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:29 pmYou do understand that revenues are higher now than before the trump cuts, right?analhamster wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:56 pm Seems to be part of the propaganda matrix the dumber righties fall for, that revenue raising is not a key part of the equation.
That's what you'd be to deny the simple fact he just stated, yes. The conservative propaganda orthodoxy that any and all tax cuts raise growth so much as to instantly pay for themselves, or even fully pay for themselves is demonstrably bullshit.Biker wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 11:08 pmMoron.Reservoir Dog wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 10:55 pmHoly shit, dude! You do realize that if the government cuts taxes, then the government makes LESS revenue? Right?Biker wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:29 pmYou do understand that revenues are higher now than before the trump cuts, right?analhamster wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:56 pm Seems to be part of the propaganda matrix the dumber righties fall for, that revenue raising is not a key part of the equation.
The corporate entities that do everything in their power in order to pay LESS taxes ... are STILL doing everything in their power to pay LESS taxes even after getting a TAX CUT from the Republican tax plan.Biker wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 11:08 pmMoron.Reservoir Dog wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 10:55 pmHoly shit, dude! You do realize that if the government cuts taxes, then the government makes LESS revenue? Right?Biker wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:29 pmYou do understand that revenues are higher now than before the trump cuts, right?analhamster wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:56 pm Seems to be part of the propaganda matrix the dumber righties fall for, that revenue raising is not a key part of the equation.
Do I really have to give examples or can we just use this thread where you are demonstrating a high level of misunderstanding of how tax rates affect revenue streams?Biker wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:30 pmFor example or nah?
There was that and then the whole "Britain's economy will not be negatively affected by Brexit"analhamster wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 5:01 pm I heard steel prices wouldn't go up and Apple was a great investment as a hedge against the china trade war.
I'm pretty sure you said any spike in steel prices would have no effect because every single consumer bought six months in advance, and when I pointed out that this would be a rolling thing with different companies having different dates for placing their 6 monthly reorders, if it were even true which it wouldn't be, you ran away.Biker wrote: ↑Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:27 amWrong. I said steel prices would go up but that it would result in a net positive. And it didspudoc wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 5:04 pmThere was that and then the whole "Britain's economy will not be negatively affected by Brexit"analhamster wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 5:01 pm I heard steel prices wouldn't go up and Apple was a great investment as a hedge against the china trade war.
It's like a "Biker's Greatest Hits" album
Your argument is divorced from reality. The deficit to GDP ratio is well monitored and readily available, you simply haven't looked or couldn't understand-Cassandros wrote: ↑Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:13 amWhile you are not wrong in that the Reagan era really turned up the debt machine, the cycle started in the 70's- tax payer funded bailouts of New York, Lockheed Martin, Unity Bank and others started the true debt cycle that we live in today. Once big business and government got a taste of this, they ran with it.analhamster wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 12:08 pm It hasn't grown steadily since the 70s. As a share of GDP it grew in the 80s because Reagan cut taxes and spent more on the military, then it dropped in the 90s because taxes increased and military spending decreased, while the economy boomed. Then came the Bush tax cuts sending it up again, the 08 crisis sending it way up, and now the trump tax cuts. Meanwhile spending as a share of GDP has fairly consistently increased since the 50s, with just one sustained dip in the 90s due to the boom.
Clinton's budget looks great on paper, but he never really had a surplus*; the core of the issues in our economy were never addressed. W, O and Trump have just pushed the gas pedal down. Base Line Budgeting (and the insistence of new government departments) creates a debt accrual that can never truly decrease, and bail outs (or rather 'quantitative easing' as the jargon is now called) exacerbate the issue even more.
*(The national debt still rose over a trillion dollars during his rein; but credit where it is due: he signed the best budgets of the last 6 Presidents and had the smallest debt increase of the bunch by a good margin- largely because he spent less on the military, took more in through taxes, differential accounting, and the fact that a LOT of IOUs in the Social Security Trust Fund had not come to roost yet. This last one is killer though, and partly why W's debt numbers popped up so fast by comparison.
The projected numbers are always off, because they can't account for political policy choices. The actual numbers are the actual numbers, the best and only available, your declaration that they are cooked if they don't serve your nonsense is pulled from your ass. CBO projections are based on that baseline accounting thing you don't understand. Your 108% figure is based on a CBO projection. Debts are always looked at in relation to GDP, for various reasons you can't grasp.Cassandros wrote: ↑Mon Jan 14, 2019 1:35 am You are looking at deficits/debt based on a presumed GDP; a GDP that is somewhat cooked I might add.
Computers processing power doubles every couple years and are counted as being twice as valuable... but we both know a faster computer is nicer, but not necessarily worth twice as much as the previous model. But I digress...
The only thing that matters is the DEBT and what adds to it. In the 70's it became legal to make taxpayers save failing institutions that were deemed 'too big to fail'; every bailout (or QE injection) adds to this, as does every government budget that starts where it was last year and goes up from there.
Also, it is a shame that graph stops at 2010... cause those projected numbers are WAY off. By 2010 the Debt/GDP ratio was 90%, today it is closer to 108%. This will only continue to get worse because of how Congress works- until the floor falls out and we get an Argentina-esque bailout by the IMF/World Bank because- just like New York and Lockheed in the 70's, or Fannie/Freddie in 2008-9 and all the bail outs between and after- America is too big to fail.
Then its game over.
Edit: Actually some of the earlier years are off too. The Debt/GDP ratio has never been less than 50% since the early 90s.
https://www.thebalance.com/national-deb ... ts-3306287
Your graph is not accurate of reality. 8(
Try disputing anything I've ever said you pathetic mental midget, this following me around yapping like a little bitch thing is getting kinda old.Charliesheen wrote: ↑Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:20 pm Aww c'mon perfessor elbow-patch.You can, no, you must do better at running off this open challenger to your wiki scavenger hunts.