How about telling it like it is Blackman. You arguing with Texas Contrarian about tax and economic issues is like me arguing with you about legal issues. You take on someone with far superior knowledge and you're going to get your ass kicked, although you may not know it.
Texas Contrarian didn't conflate anything. He's a deficit hawk, and comparing what passes for Biden's "economic policy" to Bill Clinton's is sacrilege to a deficit hawk.
He's right about trickle down too. Bipartisan changes in the tax code during the Reagan Administration resulted in the wealthy paying more tax, as they moved out of tax shelters and the like. See for example
https://www.nytimes.com/1985/03/31/b...-pay-more.html
The only item in the post that GolferGuy, or I, might not have understood was the reference to trickle down during the Obama Administration. I suspect TC may be referring to Fed policy, which boosted asset values. Hopefully he'll return and shed a bit more light on that, as you kindly did on the issue of attorney client privilege in the Trump indictment.
Originally Posted by Tiny
Goodness. Ok. How about this. Generally, his level of granularity is more than I’d spend the time and effort to address on this forum. (As for legal issues, I know way more right off hand so it’s far simpler than arguing the weeds of economics and taxes).
As for the conflation, you’re doing it as well. Yes, the wealthy may have paid more taxes in dollars but not as their individual rates. Nonetheless, that wasn’t addressed in my original posts he was claiming to address yet he included it anyway, which is actually misdirection.
I never challenge his knowledge, nor that of Lexus (I just think Lex is dishonest broker in an argument that lies on what is actually written or in my case went in and changed my words in the quote). However, I have found them both to go off on unnecessary tangents to the issue at hand and go far beyond the actual statements made and argument presented. As I said, it gets too weedy and granular for me to spend the time to argue.
Needless to say, we differ in opinion.
As for Golfdude (evidently my stalker since he’s yet to do anything but run around sniffing my asshole), I give zero fucks what he says or thinks as Ive yet to read anything he’s typed as requiring an iota of my brain cells to comprehend. Tiny on the other hand, though we disagree on much, you can put 3 intelligible sentences together.
And yes, his quip about Obama and trickle down is a misplaced argument that non-existent interest rates and quantitative easing had the same stimulative effect as the trickle down economic theory. I’d disagree as to that assessment but I’m sure he’ll give a sufficiently complex explanation. The end result might have been similar but the how you get there differs vastly. Cutting taxes for the rich and hoping they’ll be the wave on which all ships rise is bad overall policy.
