Republicans once railed against deficits

[aboutime]

I run a small business, so yeah I understand brackets. tax cuts are a little more involved than just brackets though

CBO concluded the bush cuts added 1.6 trillion to the national debt and did not pay for themselves.

And, of course. You intentionally didn't include the WHY, as in 911, and two wars that are still taking place. That's a Democrat, DNC trick NOT to expose the obvious, while intentionally hiding actual facts.

[pete311]

Okay petey. If you are correct about the way you count. Then tell us why JFK and Reagan were both so successful with Lowering Taxes if you insist the opposite occured.

Constantly echoing the Liberal, Democrat negatives about tax cuts is an old tactic.
Democrats DO NOT WANT AMERICANS to succeed, or keep more of their own money when the Dems want to control every aspect of American lives by ruling over how much people can earn, how long they can work, and how much they must pay to KEEP THE DEMOCRAT BIG GOVERNMENT PERPETUALLY RUNNING TO BLACKMAIL taxpayers.

I'm looking at a historical graph and JFK didn't lower taxes. In fact the top bracket was held for his term at a whopping 90%!

Reagan did indeed cut taxes. Why were they successful? Clinton raised them in the 90s and the Internet exploded.

[Black Diamond]

And, of course. You intentionally didn't include the WHY, as in 911, and two wars that are still taking place. That's a Democrat, DNC trick NOT to expose the obvious, while intentionally hiding actual facts.

Came right out of Clintons pants. That's why Pete is.... Spewing it.

[Black Diamond]

I'm looking at a historical graph and JFK didn't lower taxes. In fact the top bracket was held for his term at a whopping 90%!

Reagan did indeed cut taxes. Why were they successful? Clinton raised them in the 90s and the Internet exploded.

Kennedy is the only dem to lower them since dems became the party of FDR.

[pete311]

And, of course. You intentionally didn't include the WHY, as in 911, and two wars that are still taking place. That's a Democrat, DNC trick NOT to expose the obvious, while intentionally hiding actual facts.

I don't think you read what I typed. The CBO which is bipartisan concluded the bush tax cuts increased the national debt by 1.6 trillion. The war is irrelevant in that calculation.

[pete311]

Kennedy is the only dem to lower them since dems became the party of FDR.

All I can see is maybe a 5% cut in the lower bracket.

[Black Diamond]

I don't think you read what I typed. The CBO which is bipartisan concluded the bush tax cuts increased the national debt by 1.6 trillion. The war is irrelevant in that calculation.

If they are bipartisan they should have no problem saying Obama doubled the debt.

[Black Diamond]

All I can see is maybe a 5% cut in the lower bracket.

No. He lowered the top bracket from 90 to 80. I don't know that he touched any other brackets.

[NightTrain]

I've had a six figure income for the past 8 years. What do you do?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...-analysis.html

I own my own company as well, and make 6 figures. Wtf are you thumping your chest for? Don't be a douchebag.


Now, if you don't think that a 15% tax as opposed to the current 30% - 35% isn't going to spur the economy, you have no idea as to how economics work. That's more money I can fold into my company to grow it, hire more employees, who also pay taxes on their payroll that I provide along with the normal expenditures of everyday living.

There's no downside to lower taxes, it only boosts the economy. The trick is to also have prudent non-liberal politicians paying down the debt with the increased revenues of the additional money rather than your usual tax-and-spend variety.

[pete311]

If they are bipartisan they should have no problem saying Obama doubled the debt.

great, maybe they did, not sure how that is relevant

[pete311]

I own my own company as well, and make 6 figures. Wtf are you thumping your chest for? Don't be a douchebag.

It was a response to aboutme's douchebag comment to me, check it out. How would you have liked me to respond to it?

[Black Diamond]

great, maybe they did, not sure how that is relevant

Obama saying its unpatriotic to run deficits is pretty ironic. And his supporters whining about bush is even more ironic. And funny. Trump is going to have difficulty (at least fr what has been said) lowering taxes without repealing Obamacare.

[Gunny]

I don't remember. It's hard to keep track of mccains leftist antics.

His blocking Trump's choices that i speak of is a newbie this week.

[Black Diamond]

His blocking Trump's choices that i speak of is a newbie this week.

Revenge for trump saying I like guys who don't get captured.

[NightTrain]

Petey : Read up.

The rich, for being rich, have money to lose. That's why much lower tax rates on wealth that is earned or inherited are so crucial to the economic well-being of everyone else. Precisely because the rich are flush with funds, they can take risks on the dynamic companies of tomorrow that are tautologically necessary for the prosperity that Anderson would like. Adam Smith was very clear that investment migrates away from economies that are stationary, and if the tax-cut focus is on the middle class, a more stationary economy will be ours. Such an economy will do little for the typical American whom Anderson would like to aid.

History is once again very clear here. Since the rich have money to lose, they alone can pursue the intrepid investments that make the typical American much better off. Indeed, it was J.P. Morgan who took a flyer on Thomas Edison's light bulb despite the protests of his father, it was Howard Hughes who brought a pile of inherited money to California in order to fund the aviation boom, families with names like Rockefeller, Vanderbilt and Phipps were the initial money behind the venture capital explosion out in Silicon Valley, PayPal co-founder Thiel was the money behind Facebook, and then Amazon founder Jeff Bezos was a pioneer investor in both Google and Uber.


Middle class jobs? As Cal-Berkeley economist Enrico Moretti has described it, successful tech companies author what he calls a major "jobs multiplier" as small businesses cluster around tech behemoths. Thinking about Cupertino, CA (where Apple is located) alone, its success had led to voluminous job creation as baristas, yoga instructors, personal trainers, chefs, lawyers and financial advisers have set up shop around Apple's stunning bonanza.


And then it can't be forgotten that today's typical American is not infrequently tomorrow's wealthy American. This helps explain why the world's poorest are so desperate to reach the U.S. Success in the U.S. of the wealthy variety shouldn't bring with it a tax penalty; rather it should gift the ambitious with a tax reward.


But of greatest importance is the simple truth that intrepid investment is the path to the kind of prosperity that we all want, and that will lift all boats. That being the case, the quickest fix to the relatively bland outlook on Main Street is a reduction in the tax bill for those who live in the hills above it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntam.../#499958753091