"I helped create the GOP tax myth. Trump is wrong. Tax cuts don't equal growth."

So you're saying that the rich will be paying more in income taxes? REALLY?

You don't know that.

I refuted that. Reagan's own guy denied it.

Fracking involves injection of a few hundred different toxic chemicals into the ground. Where does it go?

A fracking well in Bradford County, Pa., operated by Chesapeake Energy Corp., malfunctioned in April 2011, spewing thousands of gallons of contaminated fracking water for more than 12 hours.

And in 2012, Chesapeake was again cited for contaminating the drinking water of three families in Pennsylvania, resulting in a settlement of $1.6 million

Researchers from Duke University tested drinking water at 60 sites throughout Pennsylvania and New York; their research was published in 2011 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The researchers found that drinking water near fracking wells had levels of methane that "fell squarely within a range that the U.S. Department of Interior says is dangerous and requires urgent 'hazard mitigation' action," ProPublica reports.

And I suppose it isn't associated with earthquakes, either, eh?

Additionally, many areas of the United States not considered earthquake-prone, such as Ohio and Oklahoma, are now experiencing relatively strong seismic activity. Fracking is believed to be the cause of Oklahoma's strongest recorded quake in 2011 and more than 180 tremors in Texas between 2008 and 2009.

France and Bulgaria, countries with the largest shale-gas reserves in Europe, have already banned fracking. Protesters are blocking potential drilling sites in Poland and England.

Finally, if fracking is so safe, tell me why you think fracking companies keep the chemicals they use as secret as they can.

 

They pay the same rate and lose deductions = more taxes.

I absolutely know that - that is the reason Trump was elected - it's the economy stupid.

Bartlett is a supply side believer. Read his entire body of work instead of cherry picking quotes out of context.

Your lack of knowledge on fracking is appalling.

 

LOL!!! You should actually listen to what trump says! He says their tax rates will be cut, as do those who have looked at the proposal. So you prove again that you are willing to say whatever sounds good without even any concern for what your own party says. Nobody, left or right, agrees with you on this.

OK so you don't know.

Once again (I already said this above in an edit) Fracking involves injection of a few hundred different toxic chemicals into the ground. Where does it go?

A fracking well in Bradford County, Pa., operated by Chesapeake Energy Corp., malfunctioned in April 2011, spewing thousands of gallons of contaminated fracking water for more than 12 hours.

And in 2012, Chesapeake was again cited for contaminating the drinking water of three families in Pennsylvania, resulting in a settlement of $1.6 million

Researchers from Duke University tested drinking water at 60 sites throughout Pennsylvania and New York; their research was published in 2011 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The researchers found that drinking water near fracking wells had levels of methane that "fell squarely within a range that the U.S. Department of Interior says is dangerous and requires urgent 'hazard mitigation' action," ProPublica reports.

And I suppose it isn't associated with earthquakes, either, eh?

Additionally, many areas of the United States not considered earthquake-prone, such as Ohio and Oklahoma, are now experiencing relatively strong seismic activity. Fracking is believed to be the cause of Oklahoma's strongest recorded quake in 2011 and more than 180 tremors in Texas between 2008 and 2009.

France and Bulgaria, countries with the largest shale-gas reserves in Europe, have already banned fracking. Protesters are blocking potential drilling sites in Poland and England.

Finally, if fracking is so safe, tell me why you think fracking companies keep the chemicals they use as secret as they can.

Let's see you refute this. But try not to just fabricate feel-good answers.

 

why are the republicans tax cuts for the rich permanent and the middle class tax cuts temporary, how about we make the middle class tax cuts permanent and the tax cuts for the rich temporary - just shows us who the republicans REALLY care about - at the very least make them BOTH temporary, republicans do not even try to hide it anymore

 

From the Guardian: Who wins and loses in Trump's tax plan?

Excerpt:

My Point: There is no need whatsoever to touch taxation (except to increase it). This "tax deal" is just a KMA for Donald Dork. And given the Replicant ambivalence in the House & Senate towards Mr PotUS, it is impossible to conceive why it is being done.

Have they not got enough already ... ?!?

 

And why did we not come out much faster?

Because when Obama in 2010 asked for more money to continue the Great Recession treatment of the $875B of Obama (ARRA, 2009, that stopped dead a skyrocketing unemployment), the Replicants said "No, we must embark upon a program to reduce Gummint Debt!" (Which was not the least bit necessary since the world loves to hold T-Notes.)

What were the consequences? One of them is depicted in this BLS infographic showing NO JOB CREATION for four-long-years from 2010 to 2014 (from here):

Did the American voters even notice what was happening? Don't think so, but they did give Obama a second-term in 2012 ...

PS: Hillary should have been elected in 2016, because she did win the plurality vote. Which indicates to me that the Replicants are going to receive a shellacking next November. (Which very much depends upon a Replicant Supreme Court now considering the question of gerrymandering.)

 

The top tax rate stays the same.

It's the economy stupid. The American public is tired of 1% productivity growth.

OMG - the conspiracy theories associated with fracking !! Nice job summarizing all the wackiness out there.

 

More of the same silliness explaining the failure of the Obama economy. It never ends.

 

obviously, govt spending reduces private spending so no net gain is possible. Moreover, govt spending is the most wasteful of all so there is a net loss. Govt interference causes recessions so the cure is to let the free market put things back in their proper places. Now do you understand?

 

GREAT EXPECTATIONS

Taxation is a matter of public-policy and therefore deserves a reasoning. Which is why I keep pulling up this infographic of Discretionary Budgeted Spending.

Clearly, anyone reading that infographic would be obliged to answer the question "What is the purpose of government spending?" (And the answer is not just "spur growth". Not nowadays, when we have more than enough.) But from the infographic the answer seems to be "DEFEND THE NATION!"

From what threat? Aint none, because the real threat is internal and not external.

The larger answer is to provide government-services in terms of national priorities. And the DoD is not a national-priority until we are at war. Which, thankfully, has not been for while.

The National Priority is a set of desirables that we as a nation should be able to define. But nowhere will you see a competent definition. Because we all have our own personal feelings in the matter.

Which is our problem. For as long as our National Priorities are all over the board, the country will never have the focus necessary. We elect a PotUS to establish that agenda and hope s/he executes it. We did that to Obama, and saddled him with the Great Recession that gripped America for most of his 8 years in office. (The country economically went sideways.)

So, we expect our national leader to have a vision, which is why we elect them. But, if we, the sheeple, have no clear understanding of the fundamental necessities of which the vision consists, then we will continue to get the bullshit fed to us every four-years when an presidential election comes about.

And we don't ... so, last time, the election cycle cost $6.8B and what did we get for that significant cost? Because we had no Great Expectations that defined cogently a "way forward". So, we got what we deserved.

Donald Dork. If we can't do better than that, then we deserve the next major economic recession that is just waiting tfor an introduction ...

NB: Ever wonder why such a powerful nation such as Rome eventually failed after 400 years of existence? Because it had no set of national priorities - and had only one. Aggrandize the empire, tax revenues and spend the money creating Rome. Finally, that priority just wasn't good enough!

 

I suppose you read the General Theory where Keynes sums up macroeconomics with his one and only chapter: 'its common sense aint it like'

 

You're sense of debate is faulty if you have to quote Keynes.

Moving right along ...

 

COLOSSAL CUPIDITY

Here is a review of both the bad and the good regarding the Reagan Administration:
The Achievements and Failures of the Reagan Presidency

For the most part, they were international in kind. He did not do much (good) at all in terms of "changing America". But what he did do, was amazingly effective in one area.

To wit:

Look at the above time-line (Upper Income-tax rates in green) from the year 1980. Wow! what a jump from 70% to below 30%. And, of course, these are just the "official rates".

When negotiating with the IRS and given the many ways to avoid taxation, real upper-income taxation looks like this:


Yes, people, the top 10Percenters account for almost 60% of all-taxes-paid - so imagine what they must be earning! Now you know who's funding the Replicant Party with wide-open money spigots!

And how much must one earn to enter the Valhalla of the super-rich? And become TOP 1PERCENTER! The answer is from here:

And for us lesser folk, here is the "median" income history (from here):


Note that the Median Income has been increasing since the 2014 - so, paleez, don't anybody tell me that Trump is Amerca's saviour from the awful Obama Years.

Barack spent his entire 8-years repairing a monumental Great Recession caused by the Colossal Cupidity of real-estate companies on Main Street and banksters on Wall Street.

Never forget that historical truth ...

 

"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

Republicans have spent 307 years trying to craft that legend.

 

oops 30 years.....

 

TO HAVE OR TO HAVE-NOT ... THAT IS THE QUESTION

Most developed countries seem inevitably to divide into those that "have" and those who "have-not" (to varying degrees). And in each of those countries, more than likely the haves blame the have-nots of wanting what's not theirs. Meaning that taxation should be very low on upper-incomes because success must be rewarded since it is rightly deserved.

Of course, the have-nots believe we are all in this game together, so there is no reason the haves should get it all!

The truth, one must suppose, is somewhere in the middle.

But where ... ?

PS: My response to the question: The haves are a group of very intelligent and educated people. The have-nots less so. So intelligent that they are much healthier than the have-nots. Which means (to me) the more we have free tertiary-education, the more "haves" will exist. And the healthier a country the US will be. But, it still needs a free National Healthcare System because as it is healthcare costs twice as much as any other developed country (if not more).
PPS: Which, I figure also, the Americans have taken their own sweet time to get around to believing.

 

economic ignorance like this is why conservatives should be banned from public office.

 

What "economic ignorance"?

This is a debate-forum. Unless you 're just looking to crap in it ...

 

what ignorance? The liberal forgot to say. I wonder why?

 

you're in luck given that education is now free on the internet for anyone who really wants it.
[/QUOTE]

 

Your entire post. I suggest taking an economics 101 course at your local community college, so you won't look so silly.

 

M ... R ... A ........

 

if there is econ 101 mistake somewhere I'll pay $10,000 if you can point it out. Bet? or run away once again with your liberal tail between your legs.

 

of course if it was ignorance the liberal would not be so afraid to point out why it is ignorance. Notice, a liberal will say its ignorance when he knows he cant say why its ignorance. Doesn't his mean a liberal has no integrity?