How are we going to pay for all this shit?

You can start with your tranny boyfriend...

Originally Posted by lustylad

Yet here you are...

Lol! The only thing he "preaches" is how to plagiarize a definition from an online dictionary.

Here's where his post #1493 came from.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/rectitude#

Whenever a WTF post contains anything semi-coherent, you can be certain he didn't write it! Originally Posted by lustylad

Oh , I'm sorry, I forgot how not referencing the definitions origin was so important to the conversation.

Whenever your post are not slanted partisan economic bluster then we all

Whenever your post are not slanted partisan economic bluster then we all Originally Posted by WTF

Huh?

*scratches head*

Nobody's arguing with you about the spending side of the equation WTF. We mostly agree with you. I'm not sure about Chung Tran and Eccieuser, who have been a bit coy in this thread, but the rest of us anyway.

Well, now I've got a direct pipeline to the Saints of Classical Liberalism. I'll run this by them and see if they've got any suggestions on how to get through to you. Back with you later, stay tuned. Originally Posted by Tiny

What you and others are failing to understand is that this continuing drumbeat of lower and lower taxes has added fuel to the spending spree. There is no blow back from buying more.....in fact what you do is tell the cardholder he does not have to pay as much interest the more he spends! Folks like you and lusty seem to think your party's spending doesn't count. Since Reagan there has been no, none what so ever from either side in regards to spending....except for Newt and Bubba and Ted Cruz put the brakes on Obama. Trump turbo charged it!

You also fail to acknowledge why your party will not cut spending, there would be less taxes....which would blow a hole in your cutting taxes always good , BS.

Also you might want to ask what broaden the tax base meant.

And could you get him to show where the first borrowed SS and Medicare payment was? How much of the 30 trillion dollar debt can be attributed to those two programs?

Huh?

*scratches head* Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

Scratch your ass and let lusty have a whiff of your fingers

All lustylad posts is .... slanted partisan economic bluster

What you and others are failing to understand is that this continuing drumbeat of lower and lower taxes has added fuel to the spending spree. There is no blow back from buying more.....in fact what you do is tell the cardholder he does not have to pay as much interest the more he spends! Folks like you and lusty seem to think your party's spending doesn't count. Since Reagan there has been no, none what so ever from either side in regards to spending....except for Newt and Bubba and Ted Cruz put the brakes on Obama. Trump turbo charged it!

You also fail to acknowledge why your party will not cut spending, there would be less taxes....which would blow a hole in your cutting taxes always good , BS.

Also you might want to ask what broaden the tax base meant.

And could you get him to show where the first borrowed SS and Medicare payment was? How much of the 30 trillion dollar debt can be attributed to those two programs? Originally Posted by WTF

total nonsense. lower taxes increases government spending???


ridiculous claim! i bet you can't find anything to prove that not even from the idiot twins Robert Reich and Paul Krugman.


the Democrats are the big spenders and you know it.

total nonsense. lower taxes increases government spending???


ridiculous claim! i bet you can't find anything to prove that not even from the idiot twins Robert Reich and Paul Krugman.


the Democrats are the big spenders and you know it. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

I know these things are hard for you to understand....

https://www.forbes.com/sites/taxnote...h=25fc26945d14

“This first tax cut taught Republicans that tax cuts could be popular — something that was not clear at the time, because for decades before then opinion polls had shown strong and consistent opposition to deficits,” Prasad writes.

“ERTA transformed the Republican Party from a party of fiscal rectitude into a party whose main domestic policy goal is to cut taxes.” That transformation, moreover, proved extremely durable — far more durable than ERTA itself.

Nowadays, it’s fashionable to talk about the 1986 tax reform as a watershed moment in the history of American taxation. And in some respects it was: It was certainly the apotheosis of good intentions in fiscal policymaking.

Well, now I've got a direct pipeline to the Saints of Classical Liberalism. I'll run this by them and see if they've got any suggestions on how to get through to you. Back with you later, stay tuned. Originally Posted by Tiny

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, nor his wife, nor anything that is your neighbor's

-- Exodus 20:17


Whether relative income or absolute income could affect subjective well-being has been a bone of contention for years....Using multilevel analysis, we tested the hypotheses with a dataset of 30,144 individuals from 162 counties in China.

....At a county level, happiness and life satisfaction was only associated with relative income. Without social comparison, income doesn’t improve happiness.

--Zonghuo Yu and Li Chen

Dear WTF,

OK, I asked Saint Milton about this. He said this was a question for Richard Thaler, so I rang him up. Thaler, who's kind of blunt, read some of your posts and says you don't give a rat's ass about the deficit. Rather, your concern is about inequality. If what you cared about was the deficit, you'd want to limit spending. And you don't, except for the military.

He also noted your recent post about how rich people want to get us into wars so they'll make more money, and the only way to keep that from happening was to raise their taxes sky high. We both got a good chuckle out of that one.

Anyway Dick said people don't care so much about how much money they make. What's important to them is how much money they make compared to their neighbors. If you're dragging down $120,000 a year and your neighbors are making $200,000, you won't be as happy as if you were making $70,000 and the neighbors were making $60,000.

He said that's bull shit though. Then he started spouting on about how ancient war parties used to raid villages and kill all the men and bang all their women. He said that's what evolution caused the men to do, to spread their seed. I'm not sure but I think his point is that you should be happier making $120,000 a year than $70,000, REGARDLESS of what your neighbor makes, but human nature makes you think otherwise. I'm not sure though. Dick is a little obtuse.

So anyway, using the "kill the men, bang the women" theory, I think he's saying you want to make everybody poorer if that will make them more equal. And the easiest way to do that is with Bernie Sanders style taxes on wealth, income and dead people's estates. It's harder (but better for all of us IMHO) if you work the problem from the other end -- improve education and the social safety net for disadvantaged children, come up with a program like superannuation in Australia to encourage more people to save, do something about an out of control health system that bankrupts poor people, etc.

I may be confusing you with Chung Tran, but you do want to tax capital gains at ordinary income rates, right? You go beyond about 28% rates and the amount of revenues collected by the government go down. That's one way to decrease inequality, but it makes us all poorer. The government gets less revenues.

And you're a strong proponent of the death tax. The 40% estate and gift tax only accounts for 0.5% of government revenues. Compliance is difficult and it's a GDP destroyer because of all the hoops people jump through to avoid it, thus allocating capital inefficiently.

And this whole tax-the-people-to-make-everyone-equal is just stupid. It makes everyone poorer, as you drag money out of the private sector and put it in the hands of an inefficient federal government, and smacks of Communism.

Hope this helps. I told the Saints of Classical Liberalism about how you used to be a three-quarters Libertarian and now you're a one-quarter Libertarian, and they all thought that was sad. We need more Classical Liberals. It's rough losing a soul, or even three-quarters of a soul.

I know these things are hard for you to understand....

https://www.forbes.com/sites/taxnote...h=25fc26945d14

“This first tax cut taught Republicans that tax cuts could be popular — something that was not clear at the time, because for decades before then opinion polls had shown strong and consistent opposition to deficits,” Prasad writes.

“ERTA transformed the Republican Party from a party of fiscal rectitude into a party whose main domestic policy goal is to cut taxes.” That transformation, moreover, proved extremely durable — far more durable than ERTA itself.

Nowadays, it’s fashionable to talk about the 1986 tax reform as a watershed moment in the history of American taxation. And in some respects it was: It was certainly the apotheosis of good intentions in fiscal policymaking. Originally Posted by WTF

told you that you can't find one thing to prove your ridiculous claims that tax cuts cause spending sprees.

told you that you can't find one thing to prove your ridiculous claims that tax cuts cause spending sprees. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Just because you do not understand what was said does not mean I'm going to explain it to you.

May I suggest you look up the meaning of apotheosis and try and apply that meaning into the context it was used.

It wouldn't hurt Tiny to do the same. His religious conversion has clouded his brain.

He can't make up his mind if it is a good thing to maximize tax revenues or to just continue to pull the wagon for the wealthy because he has got it so good!

Just because you do not understand what was said does not mean I'm going to explain it to you.

May I suggest you look up the meaning of apotheosis and try and apply that meaning into the context it was used.

It wouldn't hurt Tiny to do the same. His religious conversion has clouded his brain. Originally Posted by WTF

you failed to prove your claim that tax cuts lead to spending sprees.

nothing in that article backs up your claim.

told you that you can't find one thing to prove your ridiculous claims that tax cuts cause spending sprees. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

You do understand that one of the reasons for tax cuts is to get more money into the economy, right?

you failed to prove your claim that tax cuts lead to spending sprees.

nothing in that article backs up your claim. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

We have 40 years of record spending to back it up , junior.

Jesus, what rock you been living under.

I gave you the data as to when we started spending much more vs GDP

We have 40 years of record spending to back it up , junior.

Jesus, what rock you been living under.

I gave you the data as to when we started spending much more vs GDP Originally Posted by WTF

what an idiot claim. it's all Ronnie's fault? your data was intentionally misleading. the highest debt to gdp ratio during Reagan's presidency was 50%. and that was one year his 8 year average was 37%.


prove me wrong.

You do understand that one of the reasons for tax cuts is to get more money into the economy, right? Originally Posted by WTF

and that leads to massive government overspending how exactly?