USA Voted Worlds Most Competitive Economy This Year, Last Time This Happened Was 2008

[1bad65]

Economic decline doesn't lead to recession?

Geezus

You said tax and regulation cuts lead to recessions.

I'm still trying to get you to explain how that happens.....

[1bad65]

I literally explained how tax cuts for the rich cause this.

No, you did not.

I explained how you did not, and needed to try again.

You alluded to revenue being lowered and Gov't spending cuts after tax cuts, but never how the tax and regulation cuts cause recessions.

Try and keep up here.

[1bad65]

…..

You also failed to answer this one:

You tell me, did GDP grow more after the Clinton tax increases or the Clinton tax cuts?

Can you please get to that?

It's central to our discussion on tax and regulation cuts, and your claims of them causing recessions.

[Lords]

You also failed to answer this one:



Can you please get to that?

It's central to our discussion on tax and regulation cuts, and your claims of them causing recessions.

There was no cuts for the rich so this is off topic. And no, capitol gains tax doesn't qualify toward the main point since he raised income tax rates to begin with.

[Lords]

No, you did not.

I explained how you did not, and needed to try again.

You alluded to revenue being lowered and Gov't spending cuts after tax cuts, but never how the tax and regulation cuts cause recessions.

Try and keep up here.

Why do I even bother

[1bad65]

There was no cuts for the rich so this is off topic. And no, capitol gains tax doesn't qualify toward the main point since he raised income tax rates to begin with.

Sorry, you cant negate relevant data simply because it conflicts with your predetermined conclusions.

Clinton did cut taxes, and primarily for the rich.

That had an effect on the economy....

Clinton had earlier raised taxes.

That too had an effect on the economy....

Which tax policy saw greater GDP growth?

This is relevant, obviously, so I need an answer.

[1bad65]

Why do I even bother

I agree.

I'm stunned you keep trying to defend policies that cant stand up to questioning and in open debate.


When my beliefs fail to stand up in open debate or to questioning, I change them.

It's almost inconceivable to me someone would adhere to beliefs they cannot defend in open debate.

[Lords]

Sorry, you cant negate relevant data simply because it conflicts with your predetermined conclusions.

Clinton did cut taxes, and primarily for the rich.

That had an effect on the economy....

Clinton had earlier raised taxes.

That too had an effect on the economy....

Which tax policy saw greater GDP growth?

This is relevant, obviously, so I need an answer.

You do realize that the middle class also have stock investments and take part in the capital gains tax, yes?

So no, this isn't tax cuts for the rich nor is it relevant to my point.

You wana talk about tax cuts for the rich, just look at Trumps tax plan, thats a real tax cut for the rich. Over 80% of the benefits going to the top 1%.

There's $1.5 trillion dollars in lost revenue because of this, so I wonder whose shoulders this is going to lean on? BTW, this is also the biggest middle class tax increase in US history.
https://theintercept.com/2017/12/01/...istory-by-far/

Now go back and reread what I said about how lost revenue due to tax cuts for the rich contribute to recession and stop repeating the same questions over and over again.

[Lords]

I agree.

I'm stunned you keep trying to defend policies that cant stand up to questioning and in open debate.


When my beliefs fail to stand up in open debate or to questioning, I change them.

It's almost inconceivable to me someone would adhere to beliefs they cannot defend in open debate.

Everything is straight forward, you're the one who is playing stupid here.

[1bad65]

You do realize that the middle class also have stock investments and take part in the capital gains tax, yes?

Of course.

You'll notice I said the rich own most of the stocks so they got most of the tax cuts.

I never said they were the only ones who got tax cuts.

Please, please start keeping up.

I'm growing annoyed having to keep telling you this.

So no, this isn't tax cuts for the rich nor is it relevant to my point.

First, that was just disproved.

Second, it was a tax cut, and I want you to tell us the effects.

Let's get to it this year, please.

You wana talk about tax cuts for the rich, just look at Trumps tax plan, thats a real tax cut for the rich. Over 80% of the benefits going to the top 1%.

Lmfao!!!!

Dude, ALL brackets that pay IT got a cut, so no, not a tax cut solely for the rich.

Fyi, you just argued out both sides of your mouth.

Discontinue that form of cheerleading, please.

There's $1.5 trillion dollars in lost revenue because of this, so I wonder whose shoulders this is going to lean on?

False.

That is a projection, and so far a false one as IT revenue is up.

BTW, this is also the biggest middle class tax increase in US history.
https://theintercept.com/2017/12/01/...istory-by-far/

Talking point not rooted in fact.

Again, ALL tax brackets (that pay IT taxes) got a break.

There is no tax increase.

Now some of the tax cuts on lower brackets are indeed temporary, but they only go up to previous rates, so there is no net increase.

Watch those superfan sites, as they usually are not accurate.

Remember, get your news from a variety of outlets, not just superfan sites that reinforce your preconceived opinions.

Now go back and reread what I said about how lost revenue due to tax cuts for the rich contribute to recession and stop repeating the same questions over and over again.

So to be clear, a key component to this "tax and regulation cuts cause recessions" claim of yours is lowered tax revenue, correct?

Yes or No, please.

You really need to get moving on proving that, so I'm trying to work with you here.

Maybe, just maybe, you are starting to make some forward progress. That's an improvement, now keep going!