posted by iclfan2

Ha, I can’t read the article but apparently whatever firm they used researched for 6 months to come up with that. 

Biden's attempt to reappropriate "MAGA" and "ultra MAGA" was the result of a six-month research effort by liberal groups. My latest w @michaelscherer. https://t.co/foVeidRgZn

— Ashley Parker (@AshleyRParker) May 13, 2022

Link

Your tax dollars at work. 

posted by kizer permanente

Tax increases reduce the deficit… something Republicans claim they care about but never do.  

You know what else reduces deficits? Not spending out of your ass.

I always love this argument.  It’s always everyone else’s responsibility to pay for everything, but it’s not the government’s responsibility to budget wisely.  There is plenty of wasteful fat that the Government can cut right now and the country wouldn’t miss a beat. 

posted by like_that

You know what else reduces deficits? Not spending out of your ass.

I always love this argument.  It’s always everyone else’s responsibility to pay for everything, but it’s not the government’s responsibility to budget wisely.  There is plenty of wasteful fat that the Government can cut right now and the country wouldn’t miss a beat. 

When's the last time they reduced spending? They increase spending (just as every administration does) and cut tax revenue. A genius plan. 

posted by kizer permanente

When's the last time they reduced spending? They increase spending (just as every administration does) and cut tax revenue. A genius plan. 

Don't be that guy, cutting tax percent doesn't cut tax revenue.

Federal tax receipts as a percent of gdp has been basically flat since the 1950s, taking out the max/min outliers its hovering between 15.5% and 18.5% for 70 years regardless of income tax percent. 

Its the spending that has gone way up. for the most part of that 70 years spending has hovered between 15.5% and 22.5%, its been up over 30% currently. No other recession called for that much spending but apparently COVID did? 

Spending is the problem, period, anyone who can do basic math and read a couple graphs can tell that. Raise taxes/lower taxes, same percent of gdp comes in like clockwork, meaning the goal for tax policies should be to help economic growth, period, not virtue signaling "well this person pays less than his secretary" who gives a shit, grow the economy, period and the revenue goes up.

posted by kizer permanente

When's the last time they reduced spending? They increase spending (just as every administration does) and cut tax revenue. A genius plan. 

As a percent of GDP, in the 90s both Reagan and Clinton did, so did Obama after the last recession (although it never returned to the Bush years spending vs GDP, up to 2008 it was about 18%, lowest Obama got it was 20%).

So since realistically tax receipts and spending should be looked at vs GDP, spending has gone down a few times, just never comes back down to where it should be, same percent of GDP as tax receipts.

posted by kizer permanente

When's the last time they reduced spending? They increase spending (just as every administration does) and cut tax revenue. A genius plan. 

You’re not wrong. It’s bullshit.

posted by jmog

Don't be that guy

Good advice.  You realize a 2pt difference as a % of GDP is $400B today?  That's pretty significant, although if you look at a plot of revenue vs. GDP is LOOKS like there's no difference.  But typically today when we are talking about tax cuts/increases the amounts in question are usually $300-$400B annually, which is within that 2pt range.  Marginal changes and marginal difference.  Not flat or irrelevant.

This is what we typically see - tax cuts DO result in less revenue (try reading analyses instead of winging it off a chart with improper scale), but never as much as scored (maybe half).  Similarly, tax increases never raise as much revenue as projected.

Most of the tax "reform" over the past 50 years has been on the margins.  It's a simple game where the rich and corporations defer taxes for years (particularly cap gains), and take advantage of lower tax regimes to realize gains.  And that almost perfectly explains the above.

The rest of your post seems accurate.  Don't ruin a good point by leading with the right wing bullshit.

posted by gut

Good advice.  You realize a 2pt difference as a % of GDP is $400B today?  That's pretty significant, although if you look at a plot of revenue vs. GDP is LOOKS like there's no difference.  But typically today when we are talking about tax cuts/increases the amounts in question are usually $300-$400B annually, which is within that 2pt range.  Marginal changes and marginal difference.  Not flat or irrelevant.

This is what we typically see - tax cuts DO result in less revenue (try reading analyses instead of winging it off a chart with improper scale), but never as much as scored (maybe half).  Similarly, tax increases never raise as much revenue as projected.

Most of the tax "reform" over the past 50 years has been on the margins.  It's a simple game where the rich and corporations defer taxes for years (particularly cap gains), and take advantage of lower tax regimes to realize gains.  And that almost perfectly explains the above.

The rest of your post seems accurate.  Don't ruin a good point by leading with the right wing bullshit.

The problem with your whole argument is that the spending is also swinging by hundreds of billions with each percent. Which is my whole point of the comment, jacking around with the tax rates does not move the needle where it needs to go to match spending no matter where we go with tax policy.

The spending has to come down relative to GDP period, since we can’t make the tax revenue go up significantly with respect to GDP, it’s never been above 20% in the last 70 years of tax policies.

posted by jmog

The problem with your whole argument is that the spending is also swinging by hundreds of billions with each percent. Which is my whole point of the comment, jacking around with the tax rates does not move the needle where it needs to go to match spending no matter where we go with tax policy.

The spending has to come down relative to GDP period, since we can’t make the tax revenue go up significantly with respect to GDP, it’s never been above 20% in the last 70 years of tax policies.

Just admit - for a first - that someone successfully pointed out a flaw in one of your zillions of opinions.  JFC you are insufferable on here.  

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

Just admit - for a first - that someone successfully pointed out a flaw in one of your zillions of opinions.  JFC you are insufferable on here.  

My point was that the revenue stays constant with respect to GDP regardless of tax policy  but spending has not…how did he point out a flaw in that factually correct statement?

posted by kizer permanente

When's the last time they reduced spending? They increase spending (just as every administration does) and cut tax revenue. A genius plan. 

Revenues have NOT been cut.   My God, read a spreadsheet. 

Federal receipts (after Trump tax cuts) were $4.1 trillion in 2021; in '16 they were $3.3 trillion.  Receipts have INCREASSED by almost $800 billion, or 24%, AFTER the cut in tax rates (just like always).  This happens EVERY time we do it, why do we have to keep explaining it?  The problem is SPENDING, not revenue. 

Lol the disinformation board lasted all of 3 weeks. Idiots. 

They will not stop.  I just heard Carl Cameron say we may need to take names and start throwing people in jail for misinformation.

posted by majorspark

They will not stop.  I just heard Carl Cameron say we may need to take names and start throwing people in jail for misinformation.

Dang right they will not stop.  

The new press secretary is laughingly bad. Maybe start picking people for their skills vs the boxes they check. 

posted by iclfan2

The new press secretary is laughingly bad. Maybe start picking people for their skills vs the boxes they check. 

That ain't happening 

posted by iclfan2

The right also cares about the formula shortage that’s been going on, and it took over a month for the White House to say anything about it.

posted by kizer permanente

I'm sure it was the classic "I voted against it because this bill doesn't do enough".

But wait a minute....$28M?!?!?!?!  That's not even a rounding error.  That would barely cover 6 months of expenses for Hunter Biden.

posted by gut

I'm sure it was the classic "I voted against it because this bill doesn't do enough".

But wait a minute....$28M?!?!?!?!  That's not even a rounding error.  That would barely cover 6 months of expenses for Hunter Biden.

Well to be fair to ICL, 12 people on the right care. So he wasn't technically wrong. He just didn't specify how many care. 

A BIT disingenuous.  They passed another bill yesterday that actually addressed the shortages. That $28M “ A second measure to provide an extra $28 million to the Food and Drug Administration to help get fraudulent formula products off store shelves and boost the part of the workforce focused on formula, as well as FDA inspection staff”. So they voted no to not give the FDA more money for salaries and expenses. 

And in referring to Gblock I wasn’t talking about Congress, as he was bitching about people on Twitter. But glad Our dipshit officials finally did something 2 months too late. Glad I don’t have an infant. 

posted by iclfan2

A BIT disingenuous.  They passed another bill yesterday that actually addressed the shortages. That $28M “ A second measure to provide an extra $28 million to the Food and Drug Administration to help get fraudulent formula products off store shelves and boost the part of the workforce focused on formula, as well as FDA inspection staff”. So they voted no to not give the FDA more money for salaries and expenses. 

And in referring to Gblock I wasn’t talking about Congress, as he was bitching about people on Twitter. But glad Our dipshit officials finally did something 2 months too late. Glad I don’t have an infant. 

Well no... then FDA would funding to check compliance on Abbott who routinely rejected such compliance and was falsifying records according to whistleblowers in the company. Can't have Big Government amirite? Companies will do the right thing!

posted by kizer permanente

You are either disingenuous or don’t know what happened. They passed one specifically for the shortage and this one was an additional measure to give money to the FDA.

posted by kizer permanente

Well no... then FDA would funding to check compliance on Abbott who routinely rejected such compliance and was falsifying records according to whistleblowers in the company. Can't have Big Government amirite? Companies will do the right thing!

So do you admit they already did pass one specific to formula shortage and this was additional for FDA oversight?

Did you know that when you first posted the picture of the vote?