OT, Trump Filter
 

On 1/5/2016 5:56 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 6:31:06 PM UTC-5, T wrote:
On 01/04/2016 03:14 PM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 14:41:24 -0800, T wrote:

For the record, Trump couldn't hold a candle
to Cruz in a national one on one debate. Trump has you snookered.

I don't think so. I think you need to listen to what he
actually says and not someone else's spin on it. Then,
if you still disagree, it would be a fun exchange of ideas.

Do us a favor, Todd. Tell the class _what_ Trump stands for, what are
his values and what principles does he really believe. I'm not
interested in his verbal diarrhea, repetitive comments over, and over.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions

Is there anything you disagree with? Seriously.


His tax plan doesn't add up. You can't reduce the rate to 20%
on earned income, 15% on capital gains, for people making $100K
to $300K and not significantly widen the deficit. Every non-
partisan tax organization that has looked at it has said the
plan doesn't add up, increases the deficit.

If you reduce income taxes, won't people spend more?

--
Maggie

OT, Trump Filter
 

On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 10:57:38 AM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 1/5/2016 5:56 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 6:31:06 PM UTC-5, T wrote:
On 01/04/2016 03:14 PM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 14:41:24 -0800, T wrote:

For the record, Trump couldn't hold a candle
to Cruz in a national one on one debate. Trump has you snookered.

I don't think so. I think you need to listen to what he
actually says and not someone else's spin on it. Then,
if you still disagree, it would be a fun exchange of ideas.

Do us a favor, Todd. Tell the class _what_ Trump stands for, what are
his values and what principles does he really believe. I'm not
interested in his verbal diarrhea, repetitive comments over, and over.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions

Is there anything you disagree with? Seriously.


His tax plan doesn't add up. You can't reduce the rate to 20%
on earned income, 15% on capital gains, for people making $100K
to $300K and not significantly widen the deficit. Every non-
partisan tax organization that has looked at it has said the
plan doesn't add up, increases the deficit.

If you reduce income taxes, won't people spend more?

--
Maggie

Yes, but that doesn't mean Trump's sharp reduction in income tax rates will
result in the same or greater amount of federal revenue. It won't
as every non-partisan tax analyst has opined. Following that logic,
you could make the rate zero and still collect the same amount of
revenue. It doesn't work that way.

OT, Trump Filter
 

On 1/5/2016 10:13 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 10:57:38 AM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 1/5/2016 5:56 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 6:31:06 PM UTC-5, T wrote:
On 01/04/2016 03:14 PM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 14:41:24 -0800, T wrote:

For the record, Trump couldn't hold a candle
to Cruz in a national one on one debate. Trump has you snookered.

I don't think so. I think you need to listen to what he
actually says and not someone else's spin on it. Then,
if you still disagree, it would be a fun exchange of ideas.

Do us a favor, Todd. Tell the class _what_ Trump stands for, what are
his values and what principles does he really believe. I'm not
interested in his verbal diarrhea, repetitive comments over, and over.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions

Is there anything you disagree with? Seriously.


His tax plan doesn't add up. You can't reduce the rate to 20%
on earned income, 15% on capital gains, for people making $100K
to $300K and not significantly widen the deficit. Every non-
partisan tax organization that has looked at it has said the
plan doesn't add up, increases the deficit.

If you reduce income taxes, won't people spend more?


Yes, but that doesn't mean Trump's sharp reduction in income tax rates will
result in the same or greater amount of federal revenue. It won't
as every non-partisan tax analyst has opined. Following that logic,
you could make the rate zero and still collect the same amount of
revenue. It doesn't work that way.


The current tax laws don't bring in enough revenue, either, so I'm not
opposed to lower taxes. I'd be more inclined to spend a bit more money
for sure.

--
Maggie

OT, Trump Filter
 

On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 11:40:59 AM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:


The current tax laws don't bring in enough revenue, either, so I'm not
opposed to lower taxes. I'd be more inclined to spend a bit more money
for sure.

--
Maggie

Which of course has no relevance to the subject at hand. But that's to
be expected.

OT, Trump Filter
 

On 01/05/2016 07:57 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 1/5/2016 5:56 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 6:31:06 PM UTC-5, T wrote:
On 01/04/2016 03:14 PM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 14:41:24 -0800, T wrote:

For the record, Trump couldn't hold a candle
to Cruz in a national one on one debate. Trump has you snookered.

I don't think so. I think you need to listen to what he
actually says and not someone else's spin on it. Then,
if you still disagree, it would be a fun exchange of ideas.

Do us a favor, Todd. Tell the class _what_ Trump stands for, what are
his values and what principles does he really believe. I'm not
interested in his verbal diarrhea, repetitive comments over, and over.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions

Is there anything you disagree with? Seriously.


His tax plan doesn't add up. You can't reduce the rate to 20%
on earned income, 15% on capital gains, for people making $100K
to $300K and not significantly widen the deficit. Every non-
partisan tax organization that has looked at it has said the
plan doesn't add up, increases the deficit.

If you reduce income taxes, won't people spend more?


Hi Maggie,

You are correct. He is basing his analysis on a static model.
I have to go to work now, so I will try to post the economics
of why this will work tomorrow or Thursday when I get
some more Office time. Please check back.

-T

OT, Trump Filter
 

On 1/5/2016 11:06 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 11:40:59 AM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:


The current tax laws don't bring in enough revenue, either, so I'm not
opposed to lower taxes. I'd be more inclined to spend a bit more money
for sure.

--
Maggie

Which of course has no relevance to the subject at hand. But that's to
be expected.


Spending more money multiplied by an entire country doing the same thing
promotes growth and prosperity, in addition to more tax revenue.

--
Maggie

OT, Trump Filter
 

On 1/5/2016 2:14 PM, T wrote:
On 01/05/2016 07:57 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 1/5/2016 5:56 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 6:31:06 PM UTC-5, T wrote:
On 01/04/2016 03:14 PM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 14:41:24 -0800, T wrote:

For the record, Trump couldn't hold a candle
to Cruz in a national one on one debate. Trump has you snookered.

I don't think so. I think you need to listen to what he
actually says and not someone else's spin on it. Then,
if you still disagree, it would be a fun exchange of ideas.

Do us a favor, Todd. Tell the class _what_ Trump stands for, what are
his values and what principles does he really believe. I'm not
interested in his verbal diarrhea, repetitive comments over, and over.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions

Is there anything you disagree with? Seriously.


His tax plan doesn't add up. You can't reduce the rate to 20%
on earned income, 15% on capital gains, for people making $100K
to $300K and not significantly widen the deficit. Every non-
partisan tax organization that has looked at it has said the
plan doesn't add up, increases the deficit.

If you reduce income taxes, won't people spend more?


Hi Maggie,

You are correct. He is basing his analysis on a static model.
I have to go to work now, so I will try to post the economics
of why this will work tomorrow or Thursday when I get
some more Office time. Please check back.

-T

ok ... Enjoy work!

--
Maggie

OT, Trump Filter
 

On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 11:43:58 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 1/5/2016 11:06 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 11:40:59 AM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:


The current tax laws don't bring in enough revenue, either, so I'm not
opposed to lower taxes. I'd be more inclined to spend a bit more money
for sure.

--
Maggie

Which of course has no relevance to the subject at hand. But that's to
be expected.


Spending more money multiplied by an entire country doing the same thing
promotes growth and prosperity, in addition to more tax revenue.

--
Maggie

It only produces more tax revenue if taxes are already too high on the
Laffer curve. That is what you and most GOP don't understand. You just
hear part of the theory, the part you want to hear, and ignore the rest
of reality. Following your faulty logic, we could set rates at zero
and collect even more revenue.

OT, Trump Filter
 

On 1/5/2016 7:57 AM, Muggles wrote:

snip

If you reduce income taxes, won't people spend more?

The "trickle down" theory was disproved years ago. Reagan tried it, it
was a disaster, and his budget director, David Stockman, admitted that
it was all bogus. "The magic asterisk" was huge budget deficits caused
by decreased revenue that was supposed to be offset by increased
spending and taxes, which never happened.

Note that the whole decline of the U.S. economy and the stage being set
for never-ending deficits, was cast during the Reagan Administration. As
Stockman put it: "Whenever there are great strains or changes in the
economic system it tends to generate crackpot theories, which then find
their way into the legislative channels."

In any case it doesn't matter. Trump doesn't actually believe that any
of the stuff he says is possible, he is simply addressing his base:
low-information, uneducated, white voters. Even if he is elected there
will be no wall, there will be no mass deportation, there will be no
"cutting the head off of Isis, there will be no massive tax cut. None of
this is possible or practical, but it sounds good to people that lack
basic critical thinking skills.

If we want to return to the days of a thriving middle class it is
possible, but control of congress needs to be taken away from the
military-industrial complex than Eisenhower warned about.

OT, Trump Filter
 

On 1/6/2016 5:14 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 11:43:58 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 1/5/2016 11:06 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 11:40:59 AM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:

The current tax laws don't bring in enough revenue, either, so I'm not
opposed to lower taxes. I'd be more inclined to spend a bit more money
for sure.



Which of course has no relevance to the subject at hand. But that's to
be expected.

Spending more money multiplied by an entire country doing the same thing
promotes growth and prosperity, in addition to more tax revenue.


It only produces more tax revenue if taxes are already too high on the
Laffer curve. That is what you and most GOP don't understand. You just
hear part of the theory, the part you want to hear, and ignore the rest
of reality. Following your faulty logic, we could set rates at zero
and collect even more revenue.


Lowering taxes stimulates the economy, which, in turn, encourages
businesses to expand and hire more people who pay additional taxes, and
those people spend more money. When taxes are lower businesses expand
and they pay more business taxes, and even though the tax rate for them
might be lower, the increased in business will still bring in more taxes
than it would have collected previously from a business that hadn't
expanded or hired more employees.

When the government imposes too many taxes on it's people, the people
have less to spend, thus, discouraging economic growth.

--
Maggie

OT, Trump Filter
 

Muggles writes:
On 1/6/2016 5:14 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 11:43:58 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 1/5/2016 11:06 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 11:40:59 AM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:

The current tax laws don't bring in enough revenue, either, so I'm not
opposed to lower taxes. I'd be more inclined to spend a bit more money
for sure.



Which of course has no relevance to the subject at hand. But that's to
be expected.

Spending more money multiplied by an entire country doing the same thing
promotes growth and prosperity, in addition to more tax revenue.


It only produces more tax revenue if taxes are already too high on the
Laffer curve. That is what you and most GOP don't understand. You just
hear part of the theory, the part you want to hear, and ignore the rest
of reality. Following your faulty logic, we could set rates at zero
and collect even more revenue.


Lowering taxes stimulates the economy, which, in turn, encourages
businesses to expand and hire more people who pay additional taxes, and

You'll need to provide some actual research and numbers to back
that statement up. It's obviously false with respect to the Bush
tax cuts which did nothing to stimulate the economy, because the
receipients (the 1%) didn't actually spend any of it on anything
other than antiques and artworks.

OT, Trump Filter
 

On Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 11:18:16 AM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 1/6/2016 5:14 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 11:43:58 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 1/5/2016 11:06 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 11:40:59 AM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:

The current tax laws don't bring in enough revenue, either, so I'm not
opposed to lower taxes. I'd be more inclined to spend a bit more money
for sure.



Which of course has no relevance to the subject at hand. But that's to
be expected.

Spending more money multiplied by an entire country doing the same thing
promotes growth and prosperity, in addition to more tax revenue.


It only produces more tax revenue if taxes are already too high on the
Laffer curve. That is what you and most GOP don't understand. You just
hear part of the theory, the part you want to hear, and ignore the rest
of reality. Following your faulty logic, we could set rates at zero
and collect even more revenue.


Lowering taxes stimulates the economy, which, in turn, encourages
businesses to expand and hire more people who pay additional taxes, and
those people spend more money. When taxes are lower businesses expand
and they pay more business taxes, and even though the tax rate for them
might be lower, the increased in business will still bring in more taxes
than it would have collected previously from a business that hadn't
expanded or hired more employees.

When the government imposes too many taxes on it's people, the people
have less to spend, thus, discouraging economic growth.

--
Maggie

No **** Sherlock. What I'm telling you and what you can't grasp
is that doesn't mean cutting taxes from any level will produce
an increase in revenue or leave it the same. If it did, we could
put taxes at 0% and collect infinite revenue. And more to the point
here, every tax policy analysis group that I have seen that has evaluated
Trump's "plan" says it increases the deficit substantially,
along the lines of $10 bil over ten years. You can't cut rates from
38% to 20% across a huge base paying most of the taxes and have it come
out any other way. But feel free to believe what you want to believe.

OT, Trump Filter
 

On 1/6/2016 11:42 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Muggles writes:

Lowering taxes stimulates the economy, which, in turn, encourages
businesses to expand and hire more people who pay additional taxes, and

You'll need to provide some actual research and numbers to back
that statement up. It's obviously false with respect to the Bush
tax cuts which did nothing to stimulate the economy, because the
receipients (the 1%) didn't actually spend any of it on anything
other than antiques and artworks.


Obviously, needed larger cuts and much more far
reaching tax cut programs.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

OT, Trump Filter
 

On 1/6/2016 8:42 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

You'll need to provide some actual research and numbers to back
that statement up. It's obviously false with respect to the Bush
tax cuts which did nothing to stimulate the economy, because the
receipients (the 1%) didn't actually spend any of it on anything
other than antiques and artworks.

The problem is that most of the tax cuts go to bog corporations anad to
the wealthy who are not going to suddenly spend more money on U.S. made
products and have no need to hire any more people.

1. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to economic growth.
2. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to income growth.
3. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to wage growth.
4. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to job creation.

It's been tried. Of course even when it was tried it was known in
advance that it would not work.

The problem is that you have a group of people that idolize everything
about Ronald Reagan, and they just don't want to hear the truth.

OT, Trump Filter
 

On Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 10:18:16 AM UTC-6, Muggles wrote:
On 1/6/2016 5:14 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 11:43:58 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 1/5/2016 11:06 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 11:40:59 AM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:

The current tax laws don't bring in enough revenue, either, so I'm not
opposed to lower taxes. I'd be more inclined to spend a bit more money
for sure.

Which of course has no relevance to the subject at hand. But that's to
be expected.

Spending more money multiplied by an entire country doing the same thing
promotes growth and prosperity, in addition to more tax revenue.

It only produces more tax revenue if taxes are already too high on the
Laffer curve. That is what you and most GOP don't understand. You just
hear part of the theory, the part you want to hear, and ignore the rest
of reality. Following your faulty logic, we could set rates at zero
and collect even more revenue.

Lowering taxes stimulates the economy, which, in turn, encourages
businesses to expand and hire more people who pay additional taxes, and
those people spend more money. When taxes are lower businesses expand
and they pay more business taxes, and even though the tax rate for them
might be lower, the increased in business will still bring in more taxes
than it would have collected previously from a business that hadn't
expanded or hired more employees.

When the government imposes too many taxes on it's people, the people
have less to spend, thus, discouraging economic growth.
--
Maggie

Democrats tend to run corporations out of the country. People with a lot of money can move vast sums out of the country and afford to say,"FRAK THIS!" and move elsewhere. A number a millionaires have moved out and renounced their citizenship to keep the U.S. government from touching their money. It's us peasants who are stuck here where many of us are fooled into voting for Democrats who tell the people they must sacrifice while the Democrat elite live like royalty. Š™.˜‰

[8~{} Uncle Peasant Monster

OT, Trump Filter
 

On Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 2:05:59 PM UTC-6, sms wrote:
On 1/6/2016 8:42 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

You'll need to provide some actual research and numbers to back
that statement up. It's obviously false with respect to the Bush
tax cuts which did nothing to stimulate the economy, because the
receipients (the 1%) didn't actually spend any of it on anything
other than antiques and artworks.

The problem is that most of the tax cuts go to bog corporations anad to
the wealthy who are not going to suddenly spend more money on U.S. made
products and have no need to hire any more people.

1. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to economic growth.
2. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to income growth.
3. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to wage growth.
4. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to job creation.

It's been tried. Of course even when it was tried it was known in
advance that it would not work.

The problem is that you have a group of people that idolize everything
about Ronald Reagan, and they just don't want to hear the truth.

I know, a 95% tax rate with everything supplied by government and everyone being equal. I think that's already been tried in the old Soviet Union. Everyone was supposed to be equal except there were a lot of people more equal than others. Like the elite ruling class who were swimming in luxury. When someone asked an official of Aeroflot why there was a first class section on their airliners if everyone was equal and how someone got into the first class seats? The official answered,"You pay more." Š™.˜‰

How about a 100% tax rate? With everyone living in dormitories, eating food approved and supplied by government in government dining halls, wearing the same government supplied and approved clothing, Traveling with permission of government in government supplied mass transportation, Reading and watching government approved and controlled media, etc. It would be a Liberal utopia with everyone being equal and having the same stuff and...... oh yea, there's that elite ruling class problem again. Š™.˜‰

[8~{} Uncle Equal Monster

OT, Trump Filter
 

On Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 6:26:21 PM UTC-5, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 2:05:59 PM UTC-6, sms wrote:
On 1/6/2016 8:42 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

You'll need to provide some actual research and numbers to back
that statement up. It's obviously false with respect to the Bush
tax cuts which did nothing to stimulate the economy, because the
receipients (the 1%) didn't actually spend any of it on anything
other than antiques and artworks.

The problem is that most of the tax cuts go to bog corporations anad to
the wealthy who are not going to suddenly spend more money on U.S. made
products and have no need to hire any more people.

1. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to economic growth.
2. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to income growth.
3. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to wage growth.
4. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to job creation.

It's been tried. Of course even when it was tried it was known in
advance that it would not work.

The problem is that you have a group of people that idolize everything
about Ronald Reagan, and they just don't want to hear the truth.

I know, a 95% tax rate with everything supplied by government and everyone being equal. I think that's already been tried in the old Soviet Union. Everyone was supposed to be equal except there were a lot of people more equal than others. Like the elite ruling class who were swimming in luxury. When someone asked an official of Aeroflot why there was a first class section on their airliners if everyone was equal and how someone got into the first class seats? The official answered,"You pay more." Š™.˜‰

How about a 100% tax rate? With everyone living in dormitories, eating food approved and supplied by government in government dining halls, wearing the same government supplied and approved clothing, Traveling with permission of government in government supplied mass transportation, Reading and watching government approved and controlled media, etc. It would be a Liberal utopia with everyone being equal and having the same stuff and...... oh yea, there's that elite ruling class problem again. Š™.˜‰

[8~{} Uncle Equal Monster

The most basic fact here is that SMS is a bold-faced liar. He claims
that the Reagan tax cuts resulted in a drop in revenue. It's a total
lie. Revenue nearly DOUBLED. And an economy that was a disaster,
courtesy of another failed Democrat president, Jimmy Carter, went
to being the envy of the world. People alive remember what stagflation
was like, inflation at double digits, high unemployment, Tbonds at
16%, mortgage rates at 18%. My God it was a disaster. Reagan reversed
all that, created 21 mil real, good paying jobs. Internationally, the
US was a mess too, just like now, the Russians and Iranians were
making an ass of Carter, because they knew he was weak and they could.
It's actually amazing that anyone has the nerve to lie and say it wasn't so..

OT, Trump Filter
 

On 1/6/2016 6:25 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 3:05:59 PM UTC-5, sms wrote:

The problem is that you have a group of people that idolize everything
about Ronald Reagan, and they just don't want to hear the truth.

It's you who keeps lying. I lived through those years. Stormin and
others did too. And for those that didn't they can easily look up
the economic facts. Your claim that the Reagan tax cuts caused a drop
in revenue is a total lie. Revenue nearly doubled during the longest
peacetime expansion in history. Just the facts. Look it up.


I had sef employed business during the Reagan
years. I opened a new location, hired help,
and the phone kept ringing. It was the best
business years of my life.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

OT, Trump Filter; say it isn't so!
 

On 1/6/2016 7:02 PM, trader_4 wrote:
The most basic fact here is that SMS is a bold-faced liar. He claims
that the Reagan tax cuts resulted in a drop in revenue. It's a total
lie. Revenue nearly DOUBLED. And an economy that was a disaster,
courtesy of another failed Democrat president, Jimmy Carter, went
to being the envy of the world. People alive remember what stagflation
was like, inflation at double digits, high unemployment, Tbonds at
16%, mortgage rates at 18%. My God it was a disaster. Reagan reversed
all that, created 21 mil real, good paying jobs. Internationally, the
US was a mess too, just like now, the Russians and Iranians were
making an ass of Carter, because they knew he was weak and they could.
It's actually amazing that anyone has the nerve to lie and say it wasn't so.


Iranians making fun of a Democrat president? What
are the chances that might happen a second time?

About twenty years ago, I met a US citizen who
told me the Holocaust in Germany never happened.
In person, to my face. Perhaps he never visited
the historic sites still in Germany?

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

OT, Trump Filter; say it isn't so!
 

Per Stormin Mormon:
About twenty years ago, I met a US citizen who
told me the Holocaust in Germany never happened.
In person, to my face. Perhaps he never visited
the historic sites still in Germany?

I think the term-of-art is "Holocaust Denial".

It's illegal in Germany.

In the USA for awhile I worked for a guy who was a Holocaust denier.
Smart guy, great story teller.... but something was loose somewhere.

I get negative reactions when I tell people that the types who
perpetrated The Holocaust are all around us - it's just that they don't
know who they are until the right circumstances arise...... But I really
believe that and I think this guy was one of them.
--
Pete Cresswell

OT, Trump Filter
 

On 01/06/2016 08:20 AM, trader_4 wrote:
Only if you consider federal tax revenue nearly doubling a disaster.
Only if you consider the huge boost to the economy, 21 million new,
decent paying, real jobs created. Only if people getting off unemployment,
being able to buy homes, having median family income go up, are disasters.
In short, it was only a disaster for you libs.

Only if you consider a 190% increase in the national debt a good thing...

OT, Trump Filter
 

On 01/06/2016 05:02 PM, trader_4 wrote:
The most basic fact here is that SMS is a bold-faced liar. He claims
that the Reagan tax cuts resulted in a drop in revenue. It's a total
lie. Revenue nearly DOUBLED.

Why did the national debt more than double?

OT, Trump Filter
 

On 01/05/2016 12:14 PM, T wrote:
On 01/05/2016 07:57 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 1/5/2016 5:56 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 6:31:06 PM UTC-5, T wrote:
On 01/04/2016 03:14 PM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 14:41:24 -0800, T wrote:

For the record, Trump couldn't hold a candle
to Cruz in a national one on one debate. Trump has you snookered.

I don't think so. I think you need to listen to what he
actually says and not someone else's spin on it. Then,
if you still disagree, it would be a fun exchange of ideas.

Do us a favor, Todd. Tell the class _what_ Trump stands for, what are
his values and what principles does he really believe. I'm not
interested in his verbal diarrhea, repetitive comments over, and over.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions

Is there anything you disagree with? Seriously.


His tax plan doesn't add up. You can't reduce the rate to 20%
on earned income, 15% on capital gains, for people making $100K
to $300K and not significantly widen the deficit. Every non-
partisan tax organization that has looked at it has said the
plan doesn't add up, increases the deficit.

If you reduce income taxes, won't people spend more?


Hi Maggie,

You are correct. He is basing his analysis on a static model.
I have to go to work now, so I will try to post the economics
of why this will work tomorrow or Thursday when I get
some more Office time. Please check back.

-T



Answered over on a tread titled:

Trumps Tax Plan and why it will work

OT, Trump Filter; say it isn't so!
 

On Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 8:56:47 PM UTC-5, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Stormin Mormon:
About twenty years ago, I met a US citizen who
told me the Holocaust in Germany never happened.
In person, to my face. Perhaps he never visited
the historic sites still in Germany?

I think the term-of-art is "Holocaust Denial".

It's illegal in Germany.

In the USA for awhile I worked for a guy who was a Holocaust denier.
Smart guy, great story teller.... but something was loose somewhere.

I get negative reactions when I tell people that the types who
perpetrated The Holocaust are all around us - it's just that they don't
know who they are until the right circumstances arise...... But I really
believe that and I think this guy was one of them.
--
Pete Cresswell

The modern incarnation is ISIS. Marc Levin calls them IslamoNazis.

OT, Trump Filter; say it isn't so!
 

On 1/6/2016 8:56 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Stormin Mormon:
About twenty years ago, I met a US citizen who
told me the Holocaust in Germany never happened.

I get negative reactions when I tell people that the types who
perpetrated The Holocaust are all around us - it's just that they don't
know who they are until the right circumstances arise...... But I really
believe that and I think this guy was one of them.


Plenty of people today are much the same as
the ones in Germany during WWII.

A few are evil enough to delight in sending
people to thier death.

Some what more people are willing to follow
orders.

Even more people are willing to sit back and
watch others work.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

OT, Trump Filter
 

On 01/07/2016 05:53 AM, trader_4 wrote:
It's true the national debt increased
under Reagan, but he also had a Democrat controlled House the entire
time and the GOP only controlled the Senate for part of his term.
Had he been able to control spending, the deficits would have been
less. And clearly his overall plan was right. By 1999, we had a
balanced budget with tax rates at lot closer to Reagan's tax rates
than the 70% rate that existed when Reagan took office.

If he had controlled spending the prosperity would have been less too.
How much money did Start Wars dump into the economy? Classic Keynes.

OT, Trump Filter; say it isn't so!
 

On 01/07/2016 06:26 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Plenty of people today are much the same as
the ones in Germany during WWII.

A few are evil enough to delight in sending
people to thier death.

Some what more people are willing to follow
orders.

Even more people are willing to sit back and
watch others work.

There weren't many Germans sitting back and watching others work during
WWII. That's an American thing.

OT, Trump Filter
 

On 1/7/2016 10:05 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:

One of the Army Officers told me and my brother
that the focus of SDI had been changed to protecting
our satellites. This was in 1988 so I've no doubt
great strides were made in that area so the task
could have been directed back to intercepting
missiles since then. We are blind and deaf without
our satellites which is probably why research was
first done on protecting orbiting assets. ヽ(€¢€¿€¢)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Orbiting Monster


Without boots on the ground, all our electronic
stuff is fragile. Which is much of why we must
keep our ass orbiting. Oh, I mean, assets. Sorry.


--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

OT, Trump Filter; say it isn't so!
 

On 1/7/2016 10:21 AM, rbowman wrote:
On 01/07/2016 06:26 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Plenty of people today are much the same as
the ones in Germany during WWII.

A few are evil enough to delight in sending
people to thier death.

Some what more people are willing to follow
orders.

Even more people are willing to sit back and
watch others work.

There weren't many Germans sitting back and watching others work during
WWII. That's an American thing.


I worded that poorly. Ought have typed:

Even more people are willing to do thier own
jobs and remain silent as others to send
people to death.


--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

OT, Trump Filter
 

On 1/6/2016 8:52 AM, sms wrote:
On 1/5/2016 7:57 AM, Muggles wrote:

snip

If you reduce income taxes, won't people spend more?

The "trickle down" theory was disproved years ago. Reagan tried it, it
was a disaster, and his budget director, David Stockman, admitted that
it was all bogus. "The magic asterisk" was huge budget deficits caused
by decreased revenue that was supposed to be offset by increased
spending and taxes, which never happened.

Note that the whole decline of the U.S. economy and the stage being set
for never-ending deficits, was cast during the Reagan Administration. As
Stockman put it: "Whenever there are great strains or changes in the
economic system it tends to generate crackpot theories, which then find
their way into the legislative channels."

In any case it doesn't matter. Trump doesn't actually believe that any
of the stuff he says is possible, he is simply addressing his base:
low-information, uneducated, white voters. Even if he is elected there
will be no wall, there will be no mass deportation, there will be no
"cutting the head off of Isis, there will be no massive tax cut. None of
this is possible or practical, but it sounds good to people that lack
basic critical thinking skills.

If we want to return to the days of a thriving middle class it is
possible, but control of congress needs to be taken away from the
military-industrial complex than Eisenhower warned about.


I'm not sure it makes a huge difference who gets elected, especially, if
they have financial contributors with those pesky strings attached to
the candidate.

--
Maggie

OT, Trump Filter
 

On 1/6/2016 10:55 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 11:18:16 AM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 1/6/2016 5:14 AM, trader_4 wrote:


It only produces more tax revenue if taxes are already too high on the
Laffer curve. That is what you and most GOP don't understand. You just
hear part of the theory, the part you want to hear, and ignore the rest
of reality. Following your faulty logic, we could set rates at zero
and collect even more revenue.

Lowering taxes stimulates the economy, which, in turn, encourages
businesses to expand and hire more people who pay additional taxes, and
those people spend more money. When taxes are lower businesses expand
and they pay more business taxes, and even though the tax rate for them
might be lower, the increased in business will still bring in more taxes
than it would have collected previously from a business that hadn't
expanded or hired more employees.

When the government imposes too many taxes on it's people, the people
have less to spend, thus, discouraging economic growth.


No **** Sherlock.

Such comments aren't necessary, imo, unless you're just wanting to
showcase either your personal lack of self-control, or emotional
intelligence level. Honestly, trader, you have some interesting
viewpoints, but I often hesitate responding to you because of your
self-righteous caveman know-it-all approach to how you respond to just
about everyone. A little bit of "chill out and relax" goes a long way.

What I'm telling you and what you can't grasp
is that doesn't mean cutting taxes from any level will produce
an increase in revenue or leave it the same. If it did, we could
put taxes at 0% and collect infinite revenue.

Please quote where I said anything close to this? ^

And more to the point
here, every tax policy analysis group that I have seen that has evaluated
Trump's "plan" says it increases the deficit substantially,
along the lines of $10 bil over ten years. You can't cut rates from
38% to 20% across a huge base paying most of the taxes and have it come
out any other way. But feel free to believe what you want to believe.


I don't know the magic number for cutting taxes since it's not my job to
analyze it, but I'm fairly confident that cutting taxes WILL stimulate
the economy resulting in more jobs, more people who CAN pay taxes on
income, and more businesses putting more money into the economy.

--
Maggie

OT, Trump Filter
 

On 1/6/2016 4:51 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 10:18:16 AM UTC-6, Muggles wrote:
On 1/6/2016 5:14 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 11:43:58 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 1/5/2016 11:06 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 11:40:59 AM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:

The current tax laws don't bring in enough revenue, either, so I'm not
opposed to lower taxes. I'd be more inclined to spend a bit more money
for sure.

Which of course has no relevance to the subject at hand. But that's to
be expected.

Spending more money multiplied by an entire country doing the same thing
promotes growth and prosperity, in addition to more tax revenue.

It only produces more tax revenue if taxes are already too high on the
Laffer curve. That is what you and most GOP don't understand. You just
hear part of the theory, the part you want to hear, and ignore the rest
of reality. Following your faulty logic, we could set rates at zero
and collect even more revenue.

Lowering taxes stimulates the economy, which, in turn, encourages
businesses to expand and hire more people who pay additional taxes, and
those people spend more money. When taxes are lower businesses expand
and they pay more business taxes, and even though the tax rate for them
might be lower, the increased in business will still bring in more taxes
than it would have collected previously from a business that hadn't
expanded or hired more employees.

When the government imposes too many taxes on it's people, the people
have less to spend, thus, discouraging economic growth.
--
Maggie

Democrats tend to run corporations out of the country. People with a lot of money can move vast sums out of the country and afford to say,"FRAK THIS!" and move elsewhere. A number a millionaires have moved out and renounced their citizenship to keep the U.S. government from touching their money. It's us peasants who are stuck here where many of us are fooled into voting for Democrats who tell the people they must sacrifice while the Democrat elite live like royalty. Š™.˜‰

[8~{} Uncle Peasant Monster


yeah I'm a peasant too.

--
Maggie

OT, Trump Filter
 

On 1/6/2016 6:02 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 6:26:21 PM UTC-5, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 2:05:59 PM UTC-6, sms wrote:
On 1/6/2016 8:42 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

You'll need to provide some actual research and numbers to back
that statement up. It's obviously false with respect to the Bush
tax cuts which did nothing to stimulate the economy, because the
receipients (the 1%) didn't actually spend any of it on anything
other than antiques and artworks.

The problem is that most of the tax cuts go to bog corporations anad to
the wealthy who are not going to suddenly spend more money on U.S. made
products and have no need to hire any more people.

1. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to economic growth.
2. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to income growth.
3. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to wage growth.
4. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to job creation.

It's been tried. Of course even when it was tried it was known in
advance that it would not work.

The problem is that you have a group of people that idolize everything
about Ronald Reagan, and they just don't want to hear the truth.

I know, a 95% tax rate with everything supplied by government and everyone being equal. I think that's already been tried in the old Soviet Union. Everyone was supposed to be equal except there were a lot of people more equal than others. Like the elite ruling class who were swimming in luxury. When someone asked an official of Aeroflot why there was a first class section on their airliners if everyone was equal and how someone got into the first class seats? The official answered,"You pay more." Š™.˜‰

How about a 100% tax rate? With everyone living in dormitories, eating food approved and supplied by government in government dining halls, wearing the same government supplied and approved clothing, Traveling with permission of government in government supplied mass transportation, Reading and watching government approved and controlled media, etc. It would be a Liberal utopia with everyone being equal and having the same stuff and...... oh yea, there's that elite ruling class problem again. Š™.˜‰

[8~{} Uncle Equal Monster

The most basic fact here is that SMS is a bold-faced liar. He claims
that the Reagan tax cuts resulted in a drop in revenue. It's a total
lie. Revenue nearly DOUBLED. And an economy that was a disaster,
courtesy of another failed Democrat president, Jimmy Carter, went
to being the envy of the world. People alive remember what stagflation
was like, inflation at double digits, high unemployment, Tbonds at
16%, mortgage rates at 18%. My God it was a disaster. Reagan reversed
all that, created 21 mil real, good paying jobs. Internationally, the
US was a mess too, just like now, the Russians and Iranians were
making an ass of Carter, because they knew he was weak and they could.
It's actually amazing that anyone has the nerve to lie and say it wasn't so.


I really liked Reagan.

--
Maggie

OT, Trump Filter; say it isn't so!
 

On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 9:19:07 AM UTC-6, rbowman wrote:
On 01/07/2016 06:26 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Plenty of people today are much the same as
the ones in Germany during WWII.

A few are evil enough to delight in sending
people to thier death.

Some what more people are willing to follow
orders.

Even more people are willing to sit back and
watch others work.

There weren't many Germans sitting back and watching others work during
WWII. That's an American thing.

I do believe everyone who could do anything was mobilized during WWII. There was no welfare and no Affirmative Action. If there were slackers, they got their asses kicked. The citizenry wanted to participate and support the war effort. I'd have to look it up but I recall something about some malcontents like the Leftist Commies we deal with today but they were few in number and social outcasts. ヽ(€¢€¿€¢)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Lazy Monster

OT, Trump Filter; say it isn't so!
 

On 1/7/2016 3:17 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:

There weren't many Germans sitting back and watching others work during
WWII. That's an American thing.

I do believe everyone who could do anything was mobilized during WWII. There was no welfare and no Affirmative Action. If there were slackers, they got their asses kicked. The citizenry wanted to participate and support the war effort. I'd have to look it up but I recall something about some malcontents like the Leftist Commies we deal with today but they were few in number and social outcasts. ヽ(€¢€¿€¢)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Lazy Monster


Archie Bunker strains floating throguh my ears:

This woint no welfare state.

Everybody pulled his weight....



--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

OT, Trump Filter
 

On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 1:08:50 PM UTC-6, Muggles wrote:
On 1/6/2016 4:51 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 10:18:16 AM UTC-6, Muggles wrote:
On 1/6/2016 5:14 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 11:43:58 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 1/5/2016 11:06 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 11:40:59 AM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:

The current tax laws don't bring in enough revenue, either, so I'm not
opposed to lower taxes. I'd be more inclined to spend a bit more money
for sure.

Which of course has no relevance to the subject at hand. But that's to
be expected.

Spending more money multiplied by an entire country doing the same thing
promotes growth and prosperity, in addition to more tax revenue.

It only produces more tax revenue if taxes are already too high on the
Laffer curve. That is what you and most GOP don't understand. You just
hear part of the theory, the part you want to hear, and ignore the rest
of reality. Following your faulty logic, we could set rates at zero
and collect even more revenue.

Lowering taxes stimulates the economy, which, in turn, encourages
businesses to expand and hire more people who pay additional taxes, and
those people spend more money. When taxes are lower businesses expand
and they pay more business taxes, and even though the tax rate for them
might be lower, the increased in business will still bring in more taxes
than it would have collected previously from a business that hadn't
expanded or hired more employees.

When the government imposes too many taxes on it's people, the people
have less to spend, thus, discouraging economic growth.
--
Maggie

Democrats tend to run corporations out of the country. People with a lot of money can move vast sums out of the country and afford to say,"FRAK THIS!" and move elsewhere. A number a millionaires have moved out and renounced their citizenship to keep the U.S. government from touching their money. It's us peasants who are stuck here where many of us are fooled into voting for Democrats who tell the people they must sacrifice while the Democrat elite live like royalty. Š™.˜‰

[8~{} Uncle Peasant Monster

yeah I'm a peasant too.
--
Maggie

Peasant? From some of the posts directed at you, some people appear to think of you as a "****ant". I, on the other hand, am glad to be a horrible monster. ヽ(€¢€¿€¢)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Horrible Monster

OT, Trump Filter
 

On 01/06/2016 08:42 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Muggles writes:
On 1/6/2016 5:14 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 11:43:58 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 1/5/2016 11:06 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 11:40:59 AM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:

The current tax laws don't bring in enough revenue, either, so I'm not
opposed to lower taxes. I'd be more inclined to spend a bit more money
for sure.



Which of course has no relevance to the subject at hand. But that's to
be expected.

Spending more money multiplied by an entire country doing the same thing
promotes growth and prosperity, in addition to more tax revenue.


It only produces more tax revenue if taxes are already too high on the
Laffer curve. That is what you and most GOP don't understand. You just
hear part of the theory, the part you want to hear, and ignore the rest
of reality. Following your faulty logic, we could set rates at zero
and collect even more revenue.


Lowering taxes stimulates the economy, which, in turn, encourages
businesses to expand and hire more people who pay additional taxes, and

You'll need to provide some actual research and numbers to back
that statement up. It's obviously false with respect to the Bush
tax cuts which did nothing to stimulate the economy, because the
receipients (the 1%) didn't actually spend any of it on anything
other than antiques and artworks.


Bush W. the RINO could not stop spending other peoples money

OT, Trump Filter
 

On 01/06/2016 12:05 PM, sms wrote:
he problem is that you have a group of people that idolize everything
about Ronald Reagan, and they just don't want to hear the truth.


Actually is is not the truth.

OT, Trump Filter
 

On 01/06/2016 06:52 AM, sms wrote:
On 1/5/2016 7:57 AM, Muggles wrote:

snip

If you reduce income taxes, won't people spend more?

The "trickle down" theory was disproved years ago.

What a load of baloney.

How is trickle up poverty working for ya?

OT, Trump Filter
 

On 01/06/2016 07:11 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 01/06/2016 05:02 PM, trader_4 wrote:
The most basic fact here is that SMS is a bold-faced liar. He claims
that the Reagan tax cuts resulted in a drop in revenue. It's a total
lie. Revenue nearly DOUBLED.

Why did the national debt more than double?

Because Reagan did not control the congress and had to bride them
with $2.00 on their graft (domestic spending on their friends)
for every $1.00 he spent on defense.

TOTALLY DISGUSTING!