Umm, no. You can point to my words and say, “that is a naive position.” But if you want to say what I am, we’ve got another forum for that.
Except during the Clinton surpluses.
While I’d say so, that’s obviously impossible to prove: that was 2000’s other possible future, the one we’re not headed down. But there’s no reason to believe that he wouldn’t have continued economic policies similar to those of Clinton.
It just took, what, 16 years of enormous deficits before it started working? And then we got two or three balanced budgets out of the deal before (under Shrub, oddly enough) Reaganomics stopped working again? That’s a pretty low rate of return for your favored economic philosophy.
No. He made use of the wave to get the nation’s fiscal house in order.
No. But especially as all the conservatives are now saying the economy was already failing before Clinton left office, it was certainly possible for Bush to see that that was happening - and not give away a ‘surplus’ that wasn’t going to to happen. Any Gore tax cut would have been much smaller; any major new Gore spending programs would have been blocked by the GOP majority in Congress.
During the Reagan-Bush years, we had the “seven good years” (they even wrote a book about it, with that title) when the economy was booming. And what did we have? $200B deficits, as far as the eye could see. (Except when they were $300B.) Clinton and Reagan/Daddy Bush both had bad, then good, economic times. They responded to their times in very different manners. Reagan/Daddy Bush took the Federal budget from modest deficits to enormous deficits. Clinton took us from enormous deficits to surpluses.
Then I hope you’re horrified that it’s closer to 10%, according to the CBO.
I have received dividend checks too, but like many - likely most - of those 10 million seniors, the checks have been modest, and the effects of the tax cut will in their case be negligible.
That’s your opinion, and that’s all it is, without supporting argument. (Even your pejorative description of taxation of dividends as “double taxation” is strictly an opinion.) But thanks for sharing.
If I owned a company, I could hold it as a sole proprietership. There would be a single taxable entity - me. There would be no double taxation under those circumstances.
As before, that is your opinion, and that is all. Thanks for sharing.
Payroll taxes. Sales taxes. State income taxes. It’s even possible to own a house and be poor, and have to pay property taxes on it.
That, too, is an opinion. It could also be said that the taxes the poor and middle-class do pay, affect their quality of life to a much greater extent than the taxes the rich pay, affect theirs.
Or it might be said that a $100 tax cut to someone making $20K is much more likely to be spent in the American economy, than the same $100 given to a rich person, where its main effect may be to help rearrange the relative positions of various already-existing securities.
You see, there are a lot of opinions. And “DUH!!” can just as easily be put after all of them, because from the speaker’s POV, the truth is usually obvious.
But here in GD, we don’t trade in opinions. We don’t just share them; we argue them, we defend them. If it’s all “DUH!!” to you, you won’t do so well.
Maybe because tax cuts for the rich don’t necessarily have the overall impact of more evenly-distributed tax cuts.
They do. See above.
Several Democrats have already proposed tax cuts that are more evenly distributed. If the GOP lets them pass such a cut, the Dems won’t bash it.