I have no plan. Like most Americans I benefit from cheap Chinese goods. The poorly educated angry white men Trump pretends to love will notice when prices for consumer goods rise.

 

That has no link to Trump.... It's from a leftwing website called ITEP.org

All you do is post false shit, lies and leftwing propaganda.

 

Well, I don't know where you have been for the last 4 years??? But here in the US, inflation has been at a all time record high under the disastrous biden administration .

So the "angry white men" already know who's to blame for the rise in consumer goods....

 

Plans to Extend and Expand Trump-Era Tax Cuts Would Largely Benefit the Wealthy
Though most Americans think the rich don’t pay their fair share, conservatives still want to lower their taxes.


Published


on

July 16, 2024

“You’re all people that have a lot of money,” he told a group of donors gathered at Mar-a-Lago for a fundraising dinner in December to support North Carolina gubernatorial candidate Mark Robinson. “You’re rich as hell. We’re gonna give you tax cuts.” He’s repeated that promise multiple times since then — and it seems to appeal to wealthy people and Wall Street executives who have been opening their checkbooks and contributing to his campaign.

Plans to Extend and Expand Trump-Era Tax Cuts Would Largely Benefit the Wealthy (capitalandmain.com)

 

We cannot tax our way out of debt.
We cannot tax our way out of debt.
We cannot tax our way out of debt.
We cannot tax our way out of debt.

Why do I have to keep repeating the same facts?

 

The real issue is which candidate will best deal with the collapse of the dollar and our economy when the house of cards built on debt collapses?

$35 TRILLION AND GROWING.
INTEREST ON THE DEBT NOW ALMOST $1 TRILLION.

 

You don't prove a falsehood by repeating it. Here are some facts:





What do you think of Trump's plan to cut taxes for the rich? What will that do to the deficit?

 

Key Takeaways From Donald Trump's Rally in Coachella

Inaccurate Claims About Wars and Tax Cuts
Trump made several inaccurate claims during his speech. He erroneously stated that there were no wars during his administration, ignoring ongoing conflicts such as Russia's occupation of Ukraine's Donbas region and the deaths of at least 65 active-duty troops in hostile action during his presidency.

Additionally, Trump falsely claimed that his administration passed the largest tax cut in American history.

In reality, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that Trump championed ranks as the eighth-largest tax cut since 1918 as a percentage of gross domestic product, according to a 2017 analysis from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Key Takeaways From Donald Trump's Rally in Coachella (msn.com)

shootersa, what do Trump's tax cuts have to do with your concern for the national debt?

 

In a Rambling Speech, Trump Offers Gripes and Yet Another Tax Cut
Even before this latest proposal, aimed at promoting car sales, an analysis found that the former president’s economic agenda could add $15 trillion to the nation’s debt over a decade.

In a Rambling Speech, Trump Offers Gripes and Yet Another Tax Cut - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

shootersa, you are going to vote for Trump, aren't you? How is your support for Trump consistent with your concern for the national debt?

 

Facts? You want facts?
Fine.
President Clinton added $1.4 trillion, almost a 32% increase from the $4.4 trillion debt at the end of President H.W. Bush's last budget. His budget "surplus" was in fact little more than moving figures around on the old budget sheet, but in the end his administration increased the debt like every other president in modern times.

The reality is that every time we increase taxes, regardless of their source, Congress will find a way to spend the increased money and then more. And it happens at both the state and Federal levels. A few states require balanced budgets, and those states do just fine; if increased government can be justified, the state legislatures find new revenue or move existing revenue.

We need a similar form of restraint at the federal level but the reality is that just now Congress is so dysfunctional a balanced budget amendment is not going to happen. So we need a President to demand from Congress a balanced budget.

Heres some interesting reading for you to digest before you come back with the same old same old, dog.
Yes, it's a ten year old article. Ironically, looking at what has happened in the decade since this was written only proves how valid it's conclusions are.

A Short History of Government Taxing and Spending in the United States (taxfoundation.org)
And for those who can't be bothered reading a long article, some excerpts for the test on Monday.

"The federal government expanded dramatically in the 20th century and has continued growing in the 21st. Between 1900 and 2012, federal government receipts increased from 3.0 percent of the economy’s output to 16.5 percent, and federal expenditures rose from 2.7 percent of economic output to 24.0 percent. State and local governments have also expanded relative to the rest of the economy, although not nearly as much as the federal government. Between 1930 and 2012, state and local government receipts grew from 8.0 percent to 13.0 percent of economic output, while their expenditures rose from 9.1 percent to 14.8 percent of output. For the overall government sector from 1930 to 2012, receipts increased from 11.1 to 26.4 percent of gross domestic product, (GDP) and expenditures rose from 12.1 to 35.6 percent of GDP."

• The decade-long Great Depression of the 1930s was a time of rapid growth for federal receipts and expenditures. Although not obvious because of Chart 1’s scale, both trends began in the last half of the Hoover administration. On the spending side, the Hoover administration initiated a number of public works and relief projects, and the Roosevelt administration doubled down on that approach with a raft of New Deal programs. On the revenue side, the Hoover administration aggressively increased taxes (for instance, hiking the top marginal individual income tax rate from 25 percent to 63 percent), and the Roosevelt administration pushed through further increases (for instance, raising the top marginal individual income tax rate to 79 percent.)

• In the severe 2007-2009 recession and its aftermath, federal spending climbed higher than at any time since World War II, and federal revenue dropped to a level last seen in the late 1940s. Federal expenditures peaked at 26.2 percent of GDP in 2010 (5.6 percentage points above the 2006 value) and federal receipts bottomed out at 15.6 percent of GDP in 2009 (2.9 percentage points below the 2006 value). In part, these movements reflect the sensitivity of federal spending and revenues to the health of the economy, combined with the recession’s severity and the recovery’s weakness. However, the increase in spending is greater than would have been expected based on economic factors alone. In 2011 and 2012, federal spending began falling, though it remained high, and federal revenue began rising. According to NIPA data for 2013 (not shown on the chart), total federal spending was 23.3 percent of GDP in the first three quarters of 2013, which is still 2.7 percentage points above its 1950-2006 average, while total federal revenue was 18.2 percent of GDP, exceeding its 1950-2006 average.[15]

To summarize this section, federal receipts and expenditures increased several times over relative to the rest of the economy in the first half of the 20th century. Their totals then stayed within moderately narrow ranges for almost the next sixty years. With the Great Recession, spending burst out of its prior range, and the deficit rose to an unprecedented level for peacetime.

In summary, between 1930 and today, state and local governments grew relative to the overall economy but not as quickly as the federal government. In 1930, the state and local levels of government dominated in terms of receipts and expenditures, but now the federal level is dominant. There has also been a shift from the local level of government to the state level.

Government revenues and outlays have not continuously expanded, however. Government expenditures returned in the last half of the Clinton administration to approximately where they had been in the 1970s, and government revenues similarly returned in the early part of the Bush administration to about their level in the 1970s. Since 2006, though, government outlays have jumped sharply, claiming over 38 percent of the nation’s economic output in 2009 and 2010. The government sector’s deficits have also surged and were over 12 percent of U.S. economic output in 2009 and 2010.

Conclusion
When examining long-term trends, it is natural to wonder what the future holds. The NIPA data only displays past events. However, two considerations suggest that federal taxes and spending, and to a lesser extent state and local taxes and spending, may be poised to increase substantially.

One consideration is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, more widely called Obamacare, which is still in the process of being rolled out and which includes an array of major new federal taxes, fees, requirements, and government assistance programs. Obamacare will also put upward pressure on state government spending.

The other consideration is the aging of the population, which has huge budget implications on both the tax and spending sides, because the federal government has promised Social Security and Medicare benefits to seniors without setting aside any real assets to redeem those promises. The federal government also has not funded some of the benefits it promises to federal workers after they retire, and many states and localities have inadequately funded their workers’ pensions.

If the government sector expands further, it will become even more vital than it is already to trim unnecessary or low-return spending programs and to strive for simplicity, economic efficiency, and transparency in tax policy to grow the economy.

 

Dog has not been paying attention. Shooter has said since the middle of the Trump administration that Trump has failed in his promises to pay down the debt, and the amounts his administration added to the debt are unconscionable.

Shooter has made clear that he holds ALL POLITICIANS AND ALL PRESIDENTS SINCE BUSH II responsible for the growth in the debt. That dog declines to acknowledge this is not Shooter's problem. In fact, that dog is clearly aware of all this, and declines to acknowledge it, only confirms that Shooter is correct. Dog has real problems acknowledging his own faulty thinking.

So;
1) Shooter has heard nothing from Trump about plans to cut taxes for "the rich". Trump has announced plans to not tax Social Security, Tips, and to stop the double taxation of Americans living abroad. Given a $35.7 TRILLION debt, no tax cut is justifiable just now.
2) As explained many times before, Shooter is very concerned about the debt and the inability of Congress or any presidential candidate to seriously address the problem. We are living on borrowed time concerning the debt, and political gamesmanship has no place in the discussion. The first goal must be to rein in government spending. The second goal must be to pay the debt down. Pay it down a lot.
3) Shooter will be voting for Trump. The alternative is unacceptable on every level. According to the few clear declarations from Harris and considering the brandon/harris track record on spending, her administration would add far more to the debt than a Trump administration.

Now, dog, answer some questions for Shooter;
1) ASSUMING that tax increases "for the rich" are not realistic, and ASSUMING that we cannot continue to increase the debt, what would your plan be to cut $2 TRILLION from current Federal Government spending?
2) Without reference to past administrations, and without reference to either political party, how would you go about convincing CONGRESS to pass a balanced budget that does not include increased taxes?
3) Would you support a move to set outside of the general budget and tax process Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and the Unemployment benefits programs? Since these programs are all supported by dedicated payroll taxes, and since they were designed to be self sufficient, would you agree that they should not be subject to the Congressional gamesmanship that is so prevalent in today's budget discussions?

 

That is not the answer to my question. That question, once again: what do you think of Trump's plan to cut taxes?

I have already demonstrated that the national debt did not become a problem until President Reagan cut the top tax rate from 70% to 28%.

I have already posted my documentation for those claims, but I courtesy I will do so again.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf

https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287

 

I do not make those assumptions. Like most Americans I favor higher taxes for the rich, and more spending for specific items in the domestic budget.

So, once again: what do you think of Trump's plans to cut taxes for the rich?

 

Shooter does not know what plan of Trump's to cut taxes for "the rich" you refer to, so he can't have an opinion, can he?

And your refusal to answer Shooter's questions, any of them, is all the answer he expected.
You fail.

 

Tariffs, Tax Cuts, Energy: What Is In Trump's Economic Plan?

By Beiyi SEOW
October 12, 2024

Despite what Trump often asserts, it is US businesses -- not foreign governments -- that pay import taxes on overseas purchases when there are tariffs on such goods, and they can pass on the higher costs, which could add to inflation.

Alongside his tariff plans, Trump wants to extend expiring tax cuts and lower corporate income tax further...

While Trump wants to lower food costs by allowing in fewer foreign agricultural products, economists have noted import barriers could trigger retaliation.

This could harm US farmers who export significantly.

Tariffs, Tax Cuts, Energy: What Is In Trump's Economic Plan? | Barron's (barrons.com)

I have explained what I want to do: no cuts in domestic spending programs; increases in the top tax rate. I have demonstrated that this is what most of the voters want. Tax cuts for the rich beginning with Reagan got us into this problem. Tax increases for the rich will get us out of it.

 

An editorial is not dispositive of Trumps plan.

Here is Trump's agenda
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/platform

Shooter doesn't see any reference to tax cuts for the rich.

Your plan to increase taxes "for the rich" will never come close to ending deficit spending and will make the debt that much bigger.
Fail.

We cannot tax our way out of debt.

 

And we're apparently going down the rabbit hole.

The debt has exploded because the Federal Government has spent more than incoming revenue.

That is as simple as it can be stated;
The debt has exploded because the Federal Government has spent more than incoming revenue.

Current revenue is just under $5 TRILLION. Spending SO FAR THIS YEAR has been over $8.75 TRILLION.
If you want to know what the government is spending money on, you can do some very detailed research here;
Government Spending Open Data | USAspending
This same site will give you insight on where revenue comes from; about half from individual income taxes, 10% from corporate taxes, and 4% from other taxes and fees. 36% is Social Security payroll tax.

If you look at the history of revenue and spending you note that with the exception of WWI and WWII revenue has always, but always, driven spending. Quite simply, Congress can always find a way to spend whatever tax money it can get.

This is why we cannot ever tax our way out of debt.

The problem with tax cuts is that congress does not spend less when tax cuts are passed by Congress. When Congress passes tax increases, congress also spends more.

We cannot tax our way out of debt.

 

How's Trump going to stop tax on S.S. when it's 36% of revenue?