Trump does not have presidential immunity in January 6 case, federal appeals court rules

They couldn't indict McCabe.

 

lol what rules are we changing? Trumps own lawyers said he could be charged without being impeached, until he was charged lol

 

You sure did. You implied also that Trump sat on his orange buttocks for 3 hours because he didn't want to violate the Posse Comitatus Act.

You also don't know what a strawman argument is, either.

@dairyair

 

What in the world is this nonsense? Turn off right wing media.

 

They just can't help it.

 

Each of those years brought in more revenue than the previous year. Tax cuts have never resulted in a loss of revenue for the treasury.

2016 $3.27 trillion
2017 $3.32 trillion
2018 $3.33 trillion
2019 $3.46 trillion

 

Again, as long as GNP is growing and more people pay taxes than last year, most years result in more revenue. The issue is how much you left on the table which in the case of all the tax cuts in my lifetime meant the rich get richer and corporations get more profitable while the lower and middle class share of total wealth decreases.

 

Feel free to copy and paste the post where I did. Your failure to do so in your post demonstrates that you cannot.

 

Source?

If that was the case, we'd rush to cut taxes; alas, you're wrong again.

https://americansfortaxfairness.org/increasing-deficit-can-traced-gop-tax-cuts/

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-did-tcja-affect-federal-budget-outlook

 

You can't recall that? No matter. We saw what you made up, and I'm not reading that nonsense again to prove you wrong yet again.

 

Government is never responsible for growth; only the degree in which growth is hindered. Money in the hands of businesses and workers creates growth. money in the hands of government follows the law of diminishing returns. We can make guesses as to how much more or less revenue would have, could have been, but economists and chimps have similar results.

There is already a model of what you propose. California has abundant resources combined with high taxes, yet still leads the nation in poverty and ranks with the highest on income inequality. The rich get richer either way. Many believe that increasing taxes on the rich lessens the burden on wage earners, but results show the opposite. The rich don't get rich by eating loses; they pass them along to the consumer.

 

OK, now you just disqualified yourself from any rational discussion of aggregate demand and macro. If you think the government does not contribute to demand then you should sue your econ professors for malpractice.

 

"Nuh uh" is not a valid argument. If I was wrong, you could tell us the year. Tax cuts have never resulted in a loss of revenue for the treasury. Ever.

Source= US treasury. Do you really not know how to research annual revenue?

 

Then you are again confused. Thinking of some other posters comments. I am the one pointing to the Defense department testimony that 4 days before Jan 6 approving the use of up to 6,000 national guard at the Capitol TO "PROVIDE ASSISTANCE"

 

You are not responding to what I said. I never said that government does not contribute to demand; they spend like thieves with stolen credit cards. They can start a war and stimulate the economy. Government spending still follows the law of diminishing returns. That spending results in more debt, increasing the burden on earners.

I said "Government is never responsible for growth; only the degree in which growth is hindered."

What happens when you put 10 economists in a room? You'll get 11 opinions.

I respect your opinion; however, it does not change fact. Tax cuts have never resulted in a loss of revenue for the treasury. Ever.

 

I fully understood your point, it is wrong. Government spending is the ultimate source of all funding in any economy. Debt is money buddy, it has always been defined as debt going back 5000 years.

 

"Nuh uh" is not a valid argument.

Tax cuts have never resulted in a loss of revenue for the treasury.

 

Let's get something straight. Today's democrats are not the descendants of the antebellum democrats. Today's republicans are not the descendants of antebellum republicans.

Got that?

 

In nominal term, I agree, however, what about Trump’s revenue as a share of GDP?

Source; OMB historical tables, Receipts as a percentage of GDP:

FY2016….17.6%
FY2017…..17.2%
FY2018…..16.4%
FY2019…..16.4%

NOTE; In 1997, Gingrich & Co. managed to balance the budget with receipts at 18.7%.

What about Revenue per capita adjusted to inflation?

Let’s see…..

FY2016 Receipts; $3.267 Trillion
Population; 327,210,198
Per Capita; $9,984
U.S. Inflation calculator, 2016 to 2019; $10,635 per Capita

FY2019 Receipts; $3.462 Trillion
Population; 334,319,671
Per Capita; $10,355

$10,635 - $10,355 = Minus $280 per Capita

334,319,671 X $280 = Minus $93.6 billion

Sources;

Monthly Treasury Statement
Worldometer, U.S. population
U.S. Inflation Calculator

 

Depends how you calculate it. Revenue would be higher in many cases without the cuts, but it’s still higher than before.

 

What about Clinton’s 1993 tax increases, some retroactive to Jan 1st, 1993;

FY1992….Bush’s Receipts; $1.09 Trillion
+ 5.5%
FY 1993….$1.15 Trillion
+ 9.5%
FY 1994….$1.26 Trillion
+ 7.2%
FY 1995….$1.35 Trillion

Trump’s tax cuts, & revenue growth rates

FY2016; $3.27 Trillion
+ 1.9%
FY2017; $3.32 Trillion
+ 0.4%
FY2018; $3.33 Trillion
+ 3.9%
FY2019; $3.46 Trillion

Source; The Balance, U.S. Federal Government Tax Revenue

 

If he said fight like hell to overcome the election then you may have something but he didn't say that so you have nothing.

 

You're splitting hairs indicted is the doj accusing him of something which is a total false accusation.

 

What is right wing anything that's not communist?

 

So the Democrats are just an all-new version of pro slavery after the civil war happened so they're worse.

Incredible. I wouldn't I don't think I would have admitted to that if I were you.