How are we going to pay for all this shit?

You are an argumentative one, aint you? And very slow to comprehend. I answered these questions several times. You are so busy arguing you don't read.

Last time. Stop being so SLOW.

The Pastor knew him as a Beggar on two occasions. I didn't say bar him, I said tell him to remove his coat that had an observable bulky suspicious item concealed. The Guard admitted being very suspicious, that's why he made a point of standing near and watching the soon-to-be Double Murderer at all times. The Guard waited until two Church members were murdered before acting. Which is what waco would do, because he values liberty and the ''right'' to waltz into a Church service armed, and be left alone to go on a killing spree.

That makes you SOFT on crime. You valued a Murderer's sense of freedom more than two lives that were needlessly taken. I bet you were for stop-and-frisk in New York? Same concept here, but you would rather argue with me. You would rather Murderer's kill people than ''violate'' their ''liberty'' by asking them to remove their coat (Fort Worth), or what they are doing out in a particular neighborhood late at night (New York).

I think you should change your nickname to the soft-on-crime Kid. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

IF YOU SAY SO


BAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA


no one else is defending your position .. why is that? i mean .. even YR won't help you. or VitaLessMan and WTF.


you are on an island of bullshit without a boat and no paddle anyway.


BAAHHHAHHHAAA

no one else is defending your position .. why is that? i mean .. even YR won't help you. or VitaLessMan and WTF.
Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Why would they? nobody is defending your position either.

Because you look pathetic arguing endlessly about a 30 month old event you never heard about until 10 days ago.

YOU ARE SOFT ON CRIME. It's hilarious watching you double, triple and quadruple down.

... when I pointed out that your method is to punish crime After you allow it to occur, whereas I intend to block crimes before they occur, and punish hard when they happen... Originally Posted by Chung Tran

So there it is -- Minority Report, aka full Commie, now with improved mind reading and everything. Brilliant Comrade. Just brilliant.

Why would they? nobody is defending your position either.

Because you look pathetic arguing endlessly about a 30 month old event you never heard about until 10 days ago.

YOU ARE SOFT ON CRIME. It's hilarious watching you double, triple and quadruple down. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

yer testicles are soft and yer sex life unexciting .. (unless u pay for it)








BAAAHHAAAAAA

Did this change your mind? Reagan first pushed through a 23% across-the-board tax cut.

Does this change your beliefs that (a) Reagan gave a big handout to the rich by lowering their tax rates, and (b) lower tax rates mean lower government revenues?

l] Originally Posted by Tiny

No and No

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reag...20since%201925.


Economic Costs
Edit
While the average income grew 75% and the median income grew 10% from 1980-1989, this disparity shows that while top earners made huge gains, bottom earners' income grew slower than the inflation rate for the same decade.
The US Federal Tax Revenue as % of the GDP decreased from 18.5 to 17.4 from 1980–1990.[11]
The budget deficit increased from $74 billion in 1980 to $221 billion in 1990.[11]
The budget deficit as a % of GDP increased from 2.6% in 1980 to 2.7% in 1989.
The tax cuts are often blamed for the Wealth inequality in the United States and the Middle-class squeeze.[14

Sign In
Subscribe
TAXES
Reagan’s Tax Cut Just Turned 40 — And It’s Still The Most Important Tax Reform Since World War II
Joseph Thorndike
Contributor
Tax Notes
Contributor Group
Sep 3, 2021,10:48am EDT

Ronald Reagan Giving Campaign Speech
President Ronald Reagan, campaigning for a second[+]CORBIS VIA GETTY IMAGES
Ronald Reagan made tax cuts the centerpiece of his 1980 campaign for the presidency. And after winning the election, he made good on his promise.

The Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA), enacted on August 13, 1981, was the biggest tax cut in American history. It was also remarkably durable, reshaping the federal tax system — and American politics — for decades to come.


First some numbers: Reagan’s tax cut slashed revenues by 2.9% of GDP, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. That makes it the biggest tax cut since the introduction of the modern income tax in 1913, surpassing even the mammoth cuts passed after World War II (2.7% of GDP in 1945 and 1.9% in 1948).


Needless to say, ERTA also eclipses the 2017 tax cut; despite former President Trump’s repeated claim that his cut was the biggest, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act clocked in at just 0.6% of GDP.


Now it has to be said that the 1981 tax cut didn’t remain quite so big; almost immediately after Reagan signed the bill into law, his economic advisers started looking for ways to unravel it. Worried by grim deficit forecasts, they unveiled a collection of “revenue enhancements” designed to slow the river of red ink flowing from the treasury.


Reagan would eventually agree to a series of tax hikes; taken together, they reduced the size of the 1981 cut by almost half, according to Bruce Bartlett, who had a hand in drafting ERTA while working for the Reagan administration.


So the 1981 tax cut started big . . . and then got smaller. But all that initial bigness mattered, establishing Reagan’s bona fides as a tax reformer — and as someone who would deliver on his promises. In the short term, that mattered for U.S. electoral politics.

But other aspects of the 1981 tax law were even more important — and had even more profound consequences. When Reagan arrived at the White House, the top marginal income tax rate for individuals was 70%. ERTA slashed it to 50% while also lowering rates in lower brackets.

Five years later, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 would lower (and consolidate) rates even more.

These rate reductions were economically important, especially when coupled with the elimination of tax preferences in the 1986 tax reform. But not all of them proved durable; Congress began to fiddle with the rates (and the tax base) almost immediately. Many of the reforms were undone within a few years.



But one aspect of the rate cuts proved very durable: Lawmakers never seriously reconsidered Reagan’s drastic cuts at the top end of the income scale.

ERTA knocked 20 percentage points off the top bracket rate, and the politics of post-ERTA taxation made no room for restoring that rate to its pre-Reagan heights — or anything even close. After 1981, 50% was the new 70%. And after a few more years, 28% was the new 70%.

Lopping 20 points off the top rate was just one of the two transformative achievements embedded in ERTA. The other was tax system indexing.

Before 1981, inflation would regularly push taxpayers into higher brackets, boosting revenue through a process known as “bracket creep.” It was a convenient way to raise more revenue — painful for hapless taxpayers but painless for the gutless lawmakers.

ERTA put an end to the bracket creep by requiring that key elements of the tax system be indexed for inflation. That ended easy finance, forcing lawmakers to confront unpleasant realities and make hard choices. It permanently transformed fiscal politics.

Finally, ERTA changed American politics well beyond the fiscal realm. As sociologist Monica Prasad argued in her outstanding 2018 book, Starving the Beast: Ronald Reagan and the Tax Cut Revolution, the 1981 tax cut taught Republicans that tax cuts could be the ticket to victory.


“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.

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.

Why would they? nobody is defending your position either.

Because you look pathetic arguing endlessly about a 30 month old event you never heard about until 10 days ago.

YOU ARE SOFT ON CRIME. It's hilarious watching you double, triple and quadruple down. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Yupper. The right seems to always go for the flimsiest (sp) sliver of proof but won't accept a fact with the highest degree of substantiation

Right up there with what they want for health care: you to be on your death bed and have your assets drained by hospital bills. They just don't believe in preventive maintenance and such. Cost less and saves money in the long run. Common sense just doesn't appeal to them.

yer testicles are soft and yer sex life unexciting .. (unless u pay for it)




...

BAAAHHAAAAAA Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

You been checking him out in the bathroom or peeking behind the spa curtains?
This is a hooker site. Hence the pay factor. At least it is without subterfuge (sp) as opposed to the RW.

BTW, you are a bit behind in reviews.

Yupper. The right seems to always go for the flimsiest (sp) sliver of proof but won't accept a fact with the highest degree of substantiation

Right up there with what they want for health care: you to be on your death bed and have your assets drained by hospital bills. They just don't believe in preventive maintenance and such. Cost less and saves money in the long run. Common sense just doesn't appeal to them.



You been checking him out in the bathroom or peeking behind the spa curtains?
This is a hooker site. Hence the pay factor. At least it is without subterfuge (sp) as opposed to the RW.

BTW, you are a bit behind in reviews. Originally Posted by Precious_b

and yet you don't offer anything to prove Chung's point.

my review is fake.

Houston Riley said so.

After all the crap you post on here none stop with no life you're expecting Us tobelieve this review. Lol I don't. I think you just got tired of people saying you're a looser on a ho bored with no life. Originally Posted by HoustonRiley

bahahahahaaaaaa

and the republicans paid for the Steele dossier.


BAAAHHHAAAAA

and yet you don't offer anything to prove Chung's point. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Why would he? You still don't get it.

The event happened 30 months ago, and until I brought it up some 10 days ago, no one had mentioned it since 2019. I remember every damn detail, because it was a local, and frankly riveting story... And I posted then, and got pushback from the crime softies then, that the Security Guard failed to prevent 2 murders, even as the media quickly called him a Hero.

Only you cared to argue about it recently. Nobody else here gives two shits, and certainly wouldn't ''side'' with either of us.

Ironic that you defend the Guard against my characterization of him as being inept, slow to respond and allowed 2 people to get murdered.. But you had no comment about the link I provided, where a Grand Jury no-billed the Guard.. I said it was outrageous that the case was ever presented. That suggests to me that your interest in the subject lay solely for sport, to argue against whatever I posted.

Why would he? You still don't get it.

The event happened 30 months ago, and until I brought it up some 10 days ago, no one had mentioned it since 2019. I remember every damn detail, because it was a local, and frankly riveting story... And I posted then, and got pushback from the crime softies then, that the Security Guard failed to prevent 2 murders, even as the media quickly called him a Hero.

Only you cared to argue about it recently. Nobody else here gives two shits, and certainly wouldn't ''side'' with either of us.

Ironic that you defend the Guard against my characterization of him as being inept, slow to respond and allowed 2 people to get murdered.. But you had no comment about the link I provided, where a Grand Jury no-billed the Guard.. I said it was outrageous that the case was ever presented. That suggests to me that your interest in the subject lay solely for sport, to argue against whatever I posted. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

they no-billed him because he wasn't at fault.


what would Chung Tran do? shoot the guy on sight? since he hadn't committed a crime yet that would be murder and you'd be in jail for life.

they no-billed him because he wasn't at fault.


what would Chung Tran do? shoot the guy on sight? since he hadn't committed a crime yet that would be murder and you'd be in jail for life. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Of course he wasn't at fault. As I said before, he was LATE. He could have, should have stopped the murders, but since he didn't, he was justified killing the shooter. Embarrasing that the Prosecutor in Tarrant County ever forwarded the case.

I told you over and over what I would have done. You ask lots of questions, with no desire to read and understand. You argue for Sport. You know it's true. I see you do it all over this Forum.

If I don't answer again you'll snicker in satisfaction, so once again, I would have insisted the Shooter remove his bulky overcoat before taking a seat. As I said several times already, the Guard and several Church members were immediately suspicious (some frightened) by the sight of this known unkempt Beggar entering the Church with what they feared was a concealed weapon. The Guard made a point of standing close by, observing the shooter with an Eagle Eye. He miscalculated, and thought he could react fast enough to stop the gunfire, should a weapon in fact be drawn. Unfortunately 2 people were murdered before the Guard could react.

Wacko is the typical Reagan Republican who wants wants wants....yet does not want to pay the actual costs for his wants.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

James M. Buchanan, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, helped develop the fiscal illusion hypothesis: "It's obvious, borrowing allows spending to be made that will yield immediate political payoffs without the incurring of any immediate political cost."[12] In their book Democracy in Deficit (1977), Buchanan and Richard E. Wagner suggest that the complicated nature of the U.S. tax system causes fiscal illusion and results in greater public expenditure than would be the case in an idealized system in which everyone is aware in detail of what their share of the costs of government is.[13]

Empirical evidence shows that Starve the Beast may be counterproductive, with lower taxes actually corresponding to higher spending. An October 2007 study by Christina D. Romer and David H. Romer of the National Bureau of Economic Research found: "[...] no support for the hypothesis that tax cuts restrain government spending; indeed, [the findings] suggest that tax cuts may actually increase spending

I gather I'm the other intellectual giant referenced. While I appreciate the designation, my preference is to humbly stay UTR.

Sure thing, Chung. There's little doubt that almost everyone here regards you as an "intellectual giant!"

I don't know what he did, but what he doesn't do is defend his statements. CM acts like you're almost crazy if you don't completely agree with him. Then links others' posts or news links in response. [Nope! Chung is the one who does that!] Hardly an intellectual giant. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

LOL! Seriously? You're the one who linked a news article in a lame effort to support your ridiculously erroneous statement -- not realizing that its point was the polar opposite of that you thought it intended! (All I did was point out that obvious fact.)

https://eccie.net/showthread.php?t=2849575

Read that thread again, Chung. This time, try to make at least a rudimentary effort to understand why you were wrong, rather than just snarkily plowing ahead with a spree of obtuseness served in fully amped-up Dunning-Kruger Effect style.

.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

James M. Buchanan, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, helped develop the fiscal illusion hypothesis: "It's obvious, borrowing allows spending to be made that will yield immediate political payoffs without the incurring of any immediate political cost."[12] In their book Democracy in Deficit (1977), Buchanan and Richard E. Wagner suggest that the complicated nature of the U.S. tax system causes fiscal illusion and results in greater public expenditure than would be the case in an idealized system in which everyone is aware in detail of what their share of the costs of government is.[13]

Empirical evidence shows that Starve the Beast may be counterproductive, with lower taxes actually corresponding to higher spending. An October 2007 study by Christina D. Romer and David H. Romer of the National Bureau of Economic Research found: "[...] no support for the hypothesis that tax cuts restrain government spending; indeed, [the findings] suggest that tax cuts may actually increase spending Originally Posted by WTF

I will agree with you in one respect, but then would like to look at the other side of the coin in an effort to fully view the crux of the predicament that we as a nation are in.

First, there's little disagreement that what some referred to decades ago as an effort to "starve the beast" has not worked well.

Looks like the constituencies advocating for greatly expanded government largesse are more powerful than those calling for tax cuts. Just look at the extent to which spending has continually been ratcheted up over the last half-century, but especially during the last two decades.

Nothing gets cut. Everything gets ratified, expanded, or accompanied by expensive new programs. Among other things, these include transfer programs, vote-buying social welfare initiatives, unnecessary "stimulus" and "rescue" programs, phony "infrastructure" packages, etc.

Of course, some countercyclical spending was needed to get us through the pandemic era, but the total was greatly in excess of the aggregate amount of lost personal income and the economy's estimated output gap.

Military outlays have increased significantly as well, though that factor pales in comparison with expansions of social spending over the last few decades.

So, after initially seeing an effort to "starve the beast," we've had massive and seemingly never-ending efforts to "let the beast have a feast."

Progressives apparently feel that if you just get all this stuff shoved through, no one will ever do anything to oppose it, lest they get landslided out of office in the next presidential or midterm election cycle.

Then the argument will always be that we need to increase taxes, although only on the top one percent of the income and net worth distribution.

As we've discussed in numerous posts, that means that we will be running ginormous fiscal deficits forever. (Or at least until something busts!)

.