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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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?