How are we going to pay for all this shit?

Hmmmm... I understand now. So the actual economy and GDP were WORSE with Trump on. And the HIGHER prices for grocery items, building and construction supplies, and increased prices for petrol somehow HELP the economy??

Let's ask the consumers, the everyday people out there who are now PAYING the increased prices - how they like it.

#### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

I never thought I'd see that, wisdom from a Canadian. Companies can't find people to work, inflation is running rampant, but still the Democratic Party wants to put more fuel on the fire. Well, at least the infrastructure bill and second reconciliation bill will trickle it out instead of dumping it, like the $1.9 trillion COVID relief bill the Democrats passed earlier this year.

You're distorting what I wrote: "I believe the corporate tax cuts played a part in that."

You say tax cuts cost money. Who does it cost? The federal government. If you believe the chief end of man is to glorify the federal government then I understand your reasoning.

Cutting taxes actually boosts economic growth. I'm not an economist but doubt that Keynes or Obama's economic advisors during the recession, who argued for leaving the Bush tax cuts in place temporarily, would disagree with that.

I agree with you about perennial deficit spending. Given that Biden et al will do away with the tax cuts, the actual reduction to government revenues may be less than $1 trillion. Compare to the many trillions that will be added to the debt as a result of COVID spending approved by Democratic and Republican politicians and the infrastructure and reconciliation bills that Democrats intend to pass.

As to Republicans cutting taxes on the rich, the USA has the most progressive tax system in the developed world. If you want a European style social welfare system, EVERYONE is going to have to pay for it: Originally Posted by Tiny

I don’t believe I distorted what you said but if I did I apologize.

Yes, cutting taxes costs money. Government spending is baked in. Since that money is as good as spent, reducing govt revenue means that the govt will engage in deficit spending. Hence tax cuts have to be paid for. Not by speculative increases in revenue (which is what the republicans always claim will result from tax cuts but never actually come to fruition) but by actual reductions in govt spending. But they never actually reduce spending either. In fact they tend to increase spending. And pay for it through increased deficits.

What i wrote remains correct. Republicans never pay for their tax cuts or increased spending.

I don’t believe I distorted what you said but if I did I apologize.

Yes, cutting taxes costs money. Government spending is baked in. Since that money is as good as spent, reducing govt revenue means that the govt will engage in deficit spending. Hence tax cuts have to be paid for. Not by speculative increases in revenue (which is what the republicans always claim will result from tax cuts but never actually come to fruition) but by actual reductions in govt spending. But they never actually reduce spending either. In fact they tend to increase spending. And pay for it through increased deficits.

What i wrote remains correct. Republicans never pay for their tax cuts or increased spending. Originally Posted by NoirMan

I never thought I'd see that, wisdom from a Canadian. Companies can't find people to work, inflation is running rampant, but still the Democratic Party wants to put more fuel on the fire. Well, at least the infrastructure bill and second reconciliation bill will trickle it out instead of dumping it, like the $1.9 trillion COVID relief bill the Democrats passed earlier this year. Originally Posted by Tiny

Just whoose a Canadian?? Watch yer insults there, mate!

#### Salty

Just whoose a Canadian?? Watch yer insults there, mate!

#### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

Maybe I misjudged you. Maybe you're not a conniving, war-mongering Canadian. Maybe you really are Australian. If so apologies. We should go sink some piss so I can check you out.

I don’t believe I distorted what you said but if I did I apologize.

Yes, cutting taxes costs money. Government spending is baked in. Since that money is as good as spent, reducing govt revenue means that the govt will engage in deficit spending. Hence tax cuts have to be paid for. Not by speculative increases in revenue (which is what the republicans always claim will result from tax cuts but never actually come to fruition) but by actual reductions in govt spending. But they never actually reduce spending either. In fact they tend to increase spending. And pay for it through increased deficits.

What i wrote remains correct. Republicans never pay for their tax cuts or increased spending. Originally Posted by NoirMan

Democrats are as bad or worse than Republicans about running up debt. Esteemed former poster WTF speculated that split government, where one party doesn't control the presidency, Senate and House, is less likely to produce large deficits. He may be right.

Maybe I misjudged you. Maybe you're not a conniving, war-mongering Canadian. Maybe you really are Australian. If so apologies. We should go sink some piss so I can check you out. Originally Posted by Tiny

thanks fer the apology, Tiny. One o' the lads here clued me on that YOU believe I'm really another poster... A banned "Canadian" fellow...

I'm NOT anyone else here. Just "Salty Again" (formerly the near
World Famous bloke "Ausse Salt" from other sites) and have not
posted on this site until this week or so.

### Salty

if a bloke says crikey... theres a pretty good chance he's a very salty aussie!

thanks fer the apology, Tiny. One o' the lads here clued me on that YOU believe I'm really another poster... A banned "Canadian" fellow...

I'm NOT anyone else here. Just "Salty Again" (formerly the near
World Famous bloke "Ausse Salt" from other sites) and have not
posted on this site until this week or so.

### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

Well, you kind of passed the test. "Sink some piss" or "suck some piss" is Australian slang for "drink some beer." Being an ignorant and violent people, Canadians would react with rage upon hearing that, believing the speaker is proposing some kind of deviant sexual act.

The fact that you came back with a friendly reply leads me to believe perhaps you truly are Australian. Australians for the most part are good people who believe in free enterprise. And they've always had our backs when it counted.

Thanks for the comments there, mates.
Bambino and a few other lads 'round here will vouch
that I am who I say I am... Truly of Australian descent,
but have been over here livin' in America for a good while now.
That's all I will say about me statures.

### Salty

Democrats are as bad or worse than Republicans about running up debt. Esteemed former poster WTF speculated that split government, where one party doesn't control the presidency, Senate and House, is less likely to produce large deficits. He may be right. Originally Posted by Tiny

I don’t know that’s correct since under the last 6 presidents deficits have been lower under Dems. Whether they want to or not they tend to have to have pay fors in order to avoid the label of spending liberals. Republicans get away with spending and deficits because they lie about it better.

All in all though both parties spend my money equally as bad.

I don’t know that’s correct since under the last 6 presidents deficits have been lower under Dems. Whether they want to or not they tend to have to have pay fors in order to avoid the label of spending liberals. Republicans get away with spending and deficits because they lie about it better.

All in all though both parties spend my money equally as bad. Originally Posted by NoirMan

Ehhh... I don't think so, mate. I DO agree that BOTH partys are heavy spenders - but the Repubs who push for spending seem to
be the "Washington establishment" types - like the Democratic
spenders are... We have seen some fiscally responcible conservatives and maybe a few liberals who are, but mostly
a lot of talk by all. At least TRUMP used his spending
push to GROW the economy.

But a few points there for us to agree on.

### Salty

I don’t know that’s correct since under the last 6 presidents deficits have been lower under Dems. Whether they want to or not they tend to have to have pay fors in order to avoid the label of spending liberals. Republicans get away with spending and deficits because they lie about it better.

All in all though both parties spend my money equally as bad. Originally Posted by NoirMan

I think you'd need to look not just at the presidency but the House and Senate as well. WTF has noted repeatedly here that spending bills originate in the house. And you might want to lag to take into the account the time between when the bills are passed and when the spending occurs, or else you'd have to give the Republicans and the Republicans alone credit for balancing the budget in 2001.

Except for 2001, the only time we've balanced the budget during most of our adult lives was when Bill Clinton was president and Republicans controlled Congress. And not only that, working together they cut the capital gains tax, reformed welfare and promoted free trade.

Agreed about both parties spending our money badly at the federal level.

The estimate was $2 trillion lower revenues over 10 years for tax cuts for corporations, pass through businesses, and individuals of all income levels. Since Biden will axe the cuts after 5 years, the amount will be less.

And what was the effect on the economy? In 2019, before COVID, we had the lowest unemployment rate since the late 1960's, and median household income finally headed upwards a lot, after stagnating during the Bush and Obama administrations. I believe the corporate tax cuts played a part in that. Originally Posted by Tiny

You believe. Lol. The trend was headed that way anyway. Had been for years. The tax cuts led to deficit spending which had been cut significantly under the Obama administration. Just because you believe that something was a cause doesn’t make it so. Particularly when there was no trend change or change of direction of economic indicators. Remove the presidents and tax cuts from the picture. Have a look at all economic indicators up through the pandemic and the 8 years prior and it’s one trend line. Originally Posted by NoirMan

You're obviously not an economist. There are dozens of "economic indicators" - which ones are you even talking about? Over any ten-year period, they tend to fluctuate all over the map. Saying they're all "one trend line" makes you look silly and ignorant.

To cite just one key metric - real GDP in Obama's last year (2016) grew by a sluggish 1.6%. Two years later (2018), it expanded by 3.0%. That's nearly twice as fast! And those 2017 tax cuts, along with the lifting of many suffocating Obama regulations, provided the stimulus.

Here's what a pair of real economists had to say about who benefited from those tax cuts. Tiny understands this stuff. There's no reason you can't read it and become similarly enlightened:


Biden Aims at Profit, Hits Workers

The 2017 corporate tax cuts triggered the blue-collar wage boom. Higher rates would reverse it.

By Phil Gramm and Mike Solon
April 6, 2021 6:18 pm ET


The Biden administration has proposed an array of corporate tax increases with a goal of raising some $1.33 trillion over the next 10 years. That’s three times the $409 billion that the Congressional Budget Office estimated was the cost of the 2017 corporate tax cut. To get a clear picture of who will pay these new taxes, Americans need to understand who benefited from the 2017 corporate tax cut.

Between the pandemic-induced recession and the years of slow growth following the 2008 subprime crisis, a brief respite of stronger growth and rising wages lifted America’s fortunes and spirits. Economic growth is generally viewed as some abstract concept, but when gross domestic product, which was projected in 2016 to grow by only 2.1% on average over the next three years, instead rose 3% in 2018, that small increase in growth made a huge difference to a lot of Americans.

The CBO responded to the increase in economic growth by adding $6.2 trillion to its 10-year GDP estimate—an extra $1,900 of annual income on average for every man, woman and child in America. The big difference this little bit of extra growth created was fully revealed in the census figures, when income growth in 2019 was the most broad-based and best ever recorded in a single year, and the poverty rate fell the most in a half a century.

Even the toughest critics of the tax cuts would grudgingly concede that the 2017 reduction in the corporate tax rate increased equity values. Despite the pandemic, the average value of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, S&P 500 and Nasdaq Composite Index has doubled since the 2016 election when markets began to anticipate a corporate tax cut.

Who benefited from these gains? Numerous studies and polls show that more than half of American households own stocks, most through pension plans, 401(k)s, individual retirement accounts, mutual funds and annuities. Beyond the irrefutable benefits that flowed into retirement plans and annuities, critics never concede that corporate tax relief helped average families, much less low-income workers.

How does that view square with 2019 census data showing that real median household income hit its highest level ever for African-American, Hispanic and Asian-American workers and retirees? Or that the 2019 poverty rate was the lowest in more than 50 years for children, at 14.4%, and the lowest ever for individuals (10.5%), for families (8.5%), and for households headed by unmarried women (22.2%).

More impressive is that, even after 10 years of economic expansion, the 2019 gains shattered all records as real household income leapt $4,379 in 2019 alone, 13 times the average annual gain since data were first collected, almost half again more than the next highest annual income gain, and a quarter more in 2019 alone than in the eight years between 2009 and 2016. Black household incomes in 2019 surged by a record $3,328. Hispanic incomes leapt $3,731—a third higher than their next best year ever recorded—and Asian-American incomes surged $9,400, about two-thirds more than the previous high.

Record income gains, especially among lower-income Americans, caused the poverty rate to plummet 11% in 2019, the most in 53 years. The poverty rate fell the most for Asians since records began in 1987 and for children the most in over half a century. The poverty rate for blacks and Hispanics hit historic lows. This cornucopia, shown so vividly in the 2019 census data, was the product of a reduction in the American corporate tax rate from the highest rate in the world to roughly the average rate among developed countries, and a concentrated effort to reduce regulatory burdens.

The White House Council of Economic Advisers in 2015 described the potential effect of reducing the corporate tax rate as follows: “When effective marginal rates are higher, potential projects need to generate more income if the business is to pay the tax and still provide investors with the required return. . . . A lower effective marginal rate will tend to encourage additional projects and a larger capital stock.” That was the Obama CEA.

How much of the benefits of the corporate tax-rate reduction went to workers? A CBO study estimated that 70% of the corporate income-tax burden falls on workers. A 2011 study by Matt Jensen and Aparna Mathur of the American Enterprise Institute made a strong case that workers bear more than 50% of the corporate tax burden. But the record income gains in 2019 provide the strongest evidence yet that the corporate tax is a hidden tax on workers.

Giving American business a level playing field on corporate tax rates triggered a blue-collar boom in which the lowest-wage earners enjoyed the fastest wage growth, 10.6% in 2019 alone. Historically disadvantaged groups like veterans, high-school dropouts and the disabled experienced their lowest unemployment rates ever. Three-fourths of workers hired in the fourth quarter of 2019 were new entrants into the labor market, many forgoing government benefits for a job. When income levels in 2019 were the highest on record, when incomes rose the most ever in a single year, when the poverty rates fell the most in a half a century, and when America’s lowest-income workers gained the most, we know who really benefited from the 2017 corporate tax cut. Does this sound like “a race to the bottom” to you?

For those who burn sacrifices at the altar of big government and believe that progress for ordinary people can come only through expanded government, the Miracle of 2019 was a UFO, some inexplicable event best ignored. No one cheers progress when peddling misery.

So as the chants about greedy corporations, overpaid CEOs and a corrupt market system harmonize in support of an increase in corporate tax rates, it’s important to remember who really benefited from making U.S. corporate tax rates more globally competitive. The 2017 corporate tax-rate reduction enhanced after-tax profits, fueled a rise in economic growth and caused wages to spike even at the end of the longest and weakest recovery of the postwar era. The reduction in corporate tax rates worked for the working people of America.

Mr. Gramm is a former chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Solon is a partner of US Policy Metrics.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-a...s-11617747500?

So you chose the lowest Obama year for comparison and a better Trump year. Good job. Kinda dishonest but ok. As I said, the trend line over 8 years up to the pandemic all head in the same direction.

Everything else you copy pasted is just goobly gook. I’ll pass on reading it.