President Trump's First 100 Days

And raising taxes doesn't either.

 

Good grief. I am the singlemost pro-abortion person on this site, that you now or are ever likely to know, and which may exist on Errf.

I have consistently espoused fully federally funded abortion kiosks in every Wal-Mart. I have offered to support the Federal governments purchase of billions of dollars in lotto tickets, specifically to incentive and reward women who abort a fetus. Only recently (in this thread, IIRC) hoped that Mountain Dew would come out with a flavor called "No Regret Ruby Red" (or some shit) and which would include the morning after pill, and that it be pink so as to be effective in being specifically marketed to women.

I've been occupied and away for a few days, and come back to this?

Get your shit together, IP.

 

As in all things, it takes a little of this and a little of that.

Just cutting taxes is not a magical cure. Nor is just raising taxes. You need a happy medium of tax cuts/increases and spending decreases. But everyone wants to look at the National Endowment for the Arts or foreign aid to cut spending on, when the three giant elephants in the room are ignored (military, social security and medicaid).

 

It solves them a helluva lot faster and better than trying spend your way out of one.

 

I'd erase that deficit - in full - in less than 36 months. Bring me a crate of coffee, a truckload of red markers and watch me work, brutha.

 

My mistake on your position. I still refute that the SC has supernatural powers of infallibility. They've been absolutely wrong on things before, and are merely a representation of prevailing opinion of legal scholars and practicioners with political favor. They aren't elected, they're not selected from the populace as a whole (though they could be, they are not), and they are of course just mere mortals. We need a system, a system has to have a top, and they are it. They render legal decisions, not absolute ones.

 

And a bullet cures cancer.

 

Well, if income "exploded" from taxes, as Droski suggests....and we had a surplus....

What do you think it was that had such a profoundly negative impact on the bottom line, to go from a surplus to a deficit?

Begins with an "E" and ends in "xpenditures".

 

No, it really doesn't. Maybe (I don't think so, but maybe) within a closed system, but not in a global one.

 

"uh-uh-UH!"

 

Who is saying they do? the economy is not soley based on tax rates

 

Relative to GDP, tax revenue did not "explode" or even increase. Droski and I can throw graphs at each other if you'd like, he and I just don't agree on the historical facts.

We didn't have a surplus under Reagan, we had one under Clinton.

Take a look at the tax rates in this country from now back to the early 20th century. Look at the tax burden of various groups. See if you notice anything.

Stating that "expenditures" is why we went from a surplus to a deficit is technically true but objectively misleading. We too a lot of that surplus and cut it or refunded it rather than applying it to debt or saving it. On-the-books spending under early Bush didn't increase.

 

Let's be honest, the GOP seems to let this belief be held or even promoted. But any sane person knows it has to come with spending cuts, which Congress seems incapable of doing wisely.

 

To be clear. I don't necessarily think we need more tax cuts. The economy is strong. I'd rather keep that available if things turn south. That being said tax cuts will help the American people. It's silly to argue they don't help. Whether they will pay for themselves is as yet unseen and basically relies on the broader economy not working against the tax cuts

 

I don't think them infallible, at all.

I just hold tremendously strong belief that the law must underpin our government, and society itself, lest it all crumble down and destroy the just and unjust alike. And I respect that there must be a final say, and that they are it. I'm all for arguing against them, working through legal means to challenge and overturn their decisions, etc. But before that point, what they order is the law of the land, and must be obeyed, whether I or anyone else likes or personally agrees with it or not.

I don't think they're superheroes at all, that they are omniscient, omnipresent or possess an intellect so high as to be unassailable or inerrant.

Well, at least now that Scalia has passed, anyway.

 

Why do you think the gdp went nuts under Reagan after the tax cuts? Coincidence? Of course they didn't go up as a percentage of gdp. He cut taxes, he didn't raise them

 

It's very irritating to have any kind of conversation on these topics. No shit they don't run solely on tax rates. Where was that brilliant insight the last 8 years when Obama was chaining the economy with his taxes? I never claimed they did, but the refrain right now is that tax cuts are going to "unleash" the economy and make up for any deficit. It won't. Trump will grow the deficit, as I said before he was ever elected. Which is counter to what Trump claimed.

 

But you agree that tax cuts can work, however long it takes or small the return....and that more spending has never, will never and mathematically cannot work, no matter the amount or length of time it occurs, right?

 

you act like I've changed my tune. I've been saying the same thing forever. Obama's tax plan was bordering on simulative because he kept the bush tax cuts when his own economic advisors told him to keep them, it was regulations and him being seen as anti business that was the primary problem. trump will grow the deficit short term. you have no idea if he will do it long term.

 

If the law is of supreme importance, why was Obama's supreme court nominee not given a vote? The law is only as important as it is useful to one's situation, it seems.